tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25415883637321604512018-02-17T23:46:53.384+02:00Comments From the EdgeAnthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.comBlogger318125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-87588833647449535182018-01-15T09:00:00.000+02:002018-01-15T09:00:00.695+02:00Israel and Shabbat<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.chabad.org.br/shabat/artigo/shamor/flame.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.chabad.org.br/shabat/artigo/shamor/flame.jpg" data-original-height="155" data-original-width="175" /></a></div>The Knesset passed into law last week, the controversial so-called "Shabbat law", also labelled by some as the "minimarket law".&nbsp; This new law requires local municipalities to first get the approval of interior minister before allowing stores in their municipal area to open on Shabbat.&nbsp; Given the fact that the current interior minister is Shas leader Arye Deri, the immediate expectation is that such approval would generally be withheld, forcing stores across the country to be closed on Shabbat.&nbsp; And furthermore, the extent to which stores are allowed to be open on Shabbat or not, will seem to depend upon who occupies the seat of the interior minister at any moment in time.<br /><br />The issue of Shabbat in the Jewish state is a complex one.&nbsp; The religious community will always wish to see the Shabbat respected to the fullest as set out by Jewish law.&nbsp; This dictates, amongst other things, that stores will be closed from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday each week, and similarly on religious holidays.&nbsp; Aside from the issue of violating Jewish law by opening stores on the holy Shabbat, the religious community also argues that the opening of stores on Shabbat forces people to work there on Shabbat.&nbsp; These workers, they believe, would be better off spending Shabbat at home with their families resting, rather than being forced to work.&nbsp; On the other hand, there is a substantial secular community living in Israel which prefers to have greater choice as to when they shop for their groceries and other items.&nbsp; Many of them work long hours during the week, and find it impossible, difficult or inconvenient to do their shopping after work during the week.&nbsp; For them, shopping on Shabbat is preferable.&nbsp; Why should they not have the right to choose for themselves when the best shopping time is for them?&nbsp; What about those people whose work during the week does not afford them enough to make a living, and who welcome the additional work hours at double time that the law allows on Shabbat?<br /><br />Does Israel, as a democratic Jewish state, have the right to impose Jewish law on its citizens?&nbsp; Does it really want to impose Jewish law?&nbsp; How important is the observance of the Shabbat to the Jewish nature of Israel?&nbsp; Israel's Jews are a mixed bunch.&nbsp; Some are observant, and some are not.&nbsp; Most of them are fiercely proud to be Jewish and to live in the Jewish state, and each expresses their Jewish identity in a different way.&nbsp; The statistics show that between 20% and 30% of the Jews in Israel consider themselves to be ultra-Orthodox or Orthodox.&nbsp; On the other end of the spectrum, around 40% of Jewish Israelis consider themselves to be secular.&nbsp; So the balance of power rests with those who consider themselves to be traditional.&nbsp; From this, we can see that there is no obvious single view that emerges concerning the importance of Shabbat observance.&nbsp; This was reflected in the law that was in force until now, that allowed each municipality to choose for itself what its policy regarding store-opening on Shabbat would be.&nbsp; This was also borne out in the High Court decision that confirmed this method of deciding.&nbsp; Each municipality can decide, according to the demographics of its local area, whether stores will be open on Shabbat or not.&nbsp; Some decide yes, others decide no.&nbsp; Some have a mixed policy of forcing stores in certain areas to close, while allowing stores in other areas to be open.&nbsp; One thing that remains certain is that there will also be those who disagree with whatever happens in their local vicinity.&nbsp; There is no possible way of satisfying all the people in any particular locality.<br /><br />The authorities have previously intervened in some ways in order to impose some element of Shabbat observance in Israel.&nbsp; El Al, Israel's national airline does not fly on Shabbat or on Jewish holidays.&nbsp; Banks, supermarkets and many other facilities are prohibited from opening on Shabbat.&nbsp; All hotels in Israel that wish to be certified by the Ministry of Tourism, are forced to serve food that is kosher.&nbsp; This requires a certain level of observance of Shabbat.&nbsp; Much of Israel's public transport does not operate on Shabbat.&nbsp; It seems to me, however, that this has extended a little too far with the government passing the recent Shabbat law.<br /><br />It seems that Interior Minister Arye Deri also feels the same.&nbsp; Despite his personal views that Shabbat should be observed, he has pledged not to exercise the power that the new law gives him to enforce Shabbat observance.&nbsp; Instead, he has indicated that he will allow each municipality to decide for themselves as they have done before.&nbsp; This view does not, however, remove the possibility that a future interior minister may exercise his power under the law in one direction or the other.&nbsp; For this reason, the law seems to me to be a step too far.<br /><br />Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, the law has become mixed up in Israeli party politics.&nbsp; Essentially, the enactment of this law has served to give Health Minister Yossi Litzman a path back to his ministerial position, after resigning from the government over his opposition to work being undertaken on Israeli railway infrastructure on Shabbat.&nbsp; Now that the new Shabbat law is on the statute books, he can prove to his party and electorate that he has forced a change to the government policy on Shabbat, and is justified in returning to the government.&nbsp; The illusion seems to hide the reality in this case.<br /><br />The often remembered Ahad Ha'am quote says, "More than the Jews have kept the Shabbat, the Shabbat has kept the Jews".&nbsp; There is no doubt that Shabbat observance has been a central tenet around which Jews have focused during the thousands of years of exile, and which has helped to maintain some element of identity and unity.&nbsp; It is interesting that, during the years of exile, Shabbat was observed out of free will, and not out of being forced on anybody.&nbsp; It seems to me that it is desirable to continue the observance out of free will, now that we have a Jewish state that enables this more than at any time during Jewish history.&nbsp; Forcing it on anybody seems counterproductive.&nbsp;<br /><br />The real question is whether Shabbat observance and the traditional Shabbat atmosphere in Israel can survive the law, or whether the law will potentially force people away from it.&nbsp; I have no doubt that free will is much stronger than laws that are imposed.&nbsp; The Shabbat is no exception. Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-2041975106468521432018-01-07T23:59:00.000+02:002018-01-07T23:59:30.608+02:00My Person of 2017<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.jewishpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Ambassador-Nikki-Haley-696x612.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.jewishpress.com/wp-content/uploads/Ambassador-Nikki-Haley-696x612.jpg" data-original-height="612" data-original-width="696" height="281" width="320" /></a></div>I have never really been a fan of the whole idea of nominating "people of the year".&nbsp; I know that it has been popular and common-place for all respectable publications and newspapers to choose their person of the year.&nbsp; Time Magazine's annual choice of person of the year is a highly anticipated occasion, with the chosen person given the privilege of gracing the publication's cover.&nbsp; Is it really possible to choose one person who epitomises the year, and who can lay claim to having had the largest influence on events in that year?&nbsp; I am not sure about that.&nbsp; For some reason, however, this year I feel differently.&nbsp; For me, there is one person who has emerged from the shadows during 2017 and truly stood out on the international stage.&nbsp; That person is US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley.<br /><br />Before even talking about Haley's achievements in her role as US Ambassador the UN, it is interesting to know a little more about the person behind the ambassadorial figure.&nbsp; She is the daughter of immigrants from India, who came to the US after her father travelled from India to complete his PhD in Canada.&nbsp; Nikki's parents are Sikhs, with all the visible differences that are associated with being a Sikh in a western environment.&nbsp; It seems to me that growing up as a child in a minority family in a southern US state has given Haley the character and skills to be a leader who is sensitive to others, particularly minority groups.&nbsp; After graduating from Clemson University and a short career in business, Haley began her political career in the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2004.&nbsp; In 2010, she was elected Governor of South Carolina, and served in this capacity until she resigned early in 2017 to take up her new role as ambassador to the UN.<br /><br />Over the years, the USA's&nbsp; position at the UN has become a little confused.&nbsp; There can be no doubt that the US was by far the strongest power and influencer when the UN was originally set up, and has continued to be the most powerful nation on earth during the years of the UN's existence until today.&nbsp; The main organs of the UN are based in the US, and the US is also by far the most substantial financial contributor to the UN.&nbsp; In its position as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UN also has the ability to veto any resolution that is brought before the Security Council.&nbsp; All of this bears testament to the US being the most powerful country amongst the community of nations.&nbsp; In the General Assembly and in other UN organ bodies, however, the US is an equal member like every other nation with much less power to influence.&nbsp; As a result of this, there are many examples where US interests (and those of US allies) have been trodden on.&nbsp; Israel, as an ally of the US and as the favourite target of many UN organisations, has suffered more than its fair share of unwarranted negative attention and condemnation.&nbsp; Of late, the UN has become a tool for local interest groups to gang up on individual countries for the purpose of furthering personal political agendas.&nbsp; Israel is certainly a victim of this.&nbsp; And this unfortunately detracts substantially from the main reason why the UN was established in the first place.<br /><br />Nikki Haley appeared to understand all of this very well from the first day that she stepped foot into her office at the UN.&nbsp; Not only did she understand this, she has been willing to stand up for what she believes to be just and equitable.&nbsp; It was clear to her that the US was being asked to contribute far more to the UN than it was receiving in return.&nbsp; It was also clear to her that Israel, a key ally of the US, was being unjustly bullied at every opportunity by UN organisations.&nbsp; She has been prepared to take on the world at the UN to put this right.&nbsp; In the process, I believe that she has brought some respectability to America's status at the UN and in the international arena in general.&nbsp; She has also been willing to tackle the unfair treatment of Israel by the UN.<br /><br />Undoubtedly, Haley has been given the drive and incentive by President Trump, who seems determined to redress the imbalance of the US position at the UN.&nbsp; But there is also little doubt that she has taken her role seriously, and has been prepared to take on the powers at the UN.&nbsp; She has shown the willingness to say and do the difficult things required to reinforce the US position at the UN.&nbsp; Last month, she was prepared to exercise the US veto at the Security Council to vote down another anti-Israel resolution, after a lengthy period of time during which the US veto was not exercised.&nbsp; Not only that, but she was vocal in threatening those who voted in favour of the US-critical resolution at the General Assembly of the risk that they would lose funding that they receive from the US.&nbsp; The way in which she has been supportive of Israel's position at the UN is very much recognised and appreciated.&nbsp; She has shown the guts to swim against the tide, and take actions which are roundly criticised by the majority.<br /><br />There is no doubt that international politics and diplomacy these days is a game of interests rather than having for consideration for what is just and right.&nbsp; And, while this contradicts the original intention that lay behind the UN when it was first set up, we see this permeating through all parts of the UN.&nbsp; The Arab lobby at the UN has been used very effectively to make Israel the bad guy of the UN.&nbsp; No other single country has had more resolutions and condemnations against them than Israel.&nbsp; Surely this says it all.<br /><br />Nikki Haley has been prepared to take on the world in defense of the US position at the UN, and also in defense of Israel's position.&nbsp; Her passion in doing this, and her unwillingness to compromise her beliefs stands out against the background of mediocrity that is evident in international diplomacy.&nbsp; Her heroic acts in sticking up for what she believes in makes her, in my opinion, the stand-out person of 2017.&nbsp; Nikki Haley will be a voice to be heard on the international stage for some time, and I am looking forward to following her activities.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-44598927677231427812017-12-18T08:30:00.000+02:002017-12-18T08:30:15.716+02:00How Important is Trump's Recognition of Jerusalem?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://committedconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/trump-western-wall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://committedconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/trump-western-wall.jpg" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>President Donald Trump's announcement to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and his decision to instruct the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, have dominated world headlines in recent weeks.&nbsp; Many have analysed what lies behind his decision, and why he chose to take these steps now.&nbsp; Amidst the speculation about these points, there appear to be no clear answers to these questions.<br /><br />The reaction from around the world has been almost universally critically.&nbsp; Except, of course, Israel's reaction where Prime Minister Netanyahu has lauded Trump's announcement as courageous, just and historic.&nbsp; It is interesting to understand why western countries have been so opposed to this announcement, and why so many countries have responded in criticising Israel when Israel was not party to this action at all.&nbsp; Not to speak of the anger shown by the Arab world with riots being held in many countries.&nbsp; And the launching of missiles towards Israel in a way that one may have viewed Israel to be the offending party here.<br /><br />Why has there been such a huge reaction to this announcement?&nbsp; Previous American presidents, most notably Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama, are on record stating the Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Jerusalem Embassy Act has been on the US statue books since 1995, and dictates that the US embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.&nbsp; In reality, Trump has said and done nothing new.&nbsp; He has simply followed in the footsteps of others before him by reiterating the obvious.&nbsp;<br /><br />The fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital cannot be disputed.&nbsp; The decision as to which city is the capital city of any country, is one that is taken by the country itself.&nbsp; It is almost unheard of for any country's choice of a capital city not to be recognised or respected by members of the international community.&nbsp; Israel declared Jerusalem to be her capital in 1948, a fact that was entrenched in the Basic Law in Israel in 1980 with the Jerusalem Law.&nbsp; The Knesset sits in Jerusalem as do all government ministries.&nbsp; Both the prime minister and the president have their offices and residences in Jerusalem, and foreign dignitaries are received in Jerusalem as the nation's capital.&nbsp; Trump's announcement, or lack of announcement, makes no difference at all to the situation.&nbsp; The fact that Jerusalem functions as the country's capital cannot be denied even by the most anti-Israeli person.<br /><br />So why the furore over Trump's announcement?&nbsp; It stems back to 1947 when the Arabs refused to accept the UN Partition Plan for Palestine that envisaged the sharing of Palestine, as it was, between Jewish and Arab states.&nbsp; It also envisaged Jerusalem being a city under international control that would be shared between the Jews and the Arabs.&nbsp; When the Arabs rejected this plan and grabbed whatever they could for themselves (including East Jerusalem), one would have thought that the UN plan was effectively rejected and binned.&nbsp; Following a number of wars in the intervening period which saw the Arabs trying to grab more for themselves, but ultimately losing ground, the Arabs ironically still reject this plan as being not enough for them.&nbsp; Perhaps this is because the Arabs continue to plot for the takeover of the entire city of Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Jews from all parts of it.&nbsp; In spite of all of the history, the international community has continued to pressurise Israel to honour the plan, even though it was formally rejected by the Arabs.&nbsp; In this context, the international community refuses to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, believing instead that the Arabs have some right to it.&nbsp; They continue to demand a piece of Jerusalem for an Arab country, that seems unlikely to arise in the near future.&nbsp; What has suddenly changed since 1947 when the Arabs rejected the plan to share Palestine and Jerusalem?&nbsp; I don't think that anything has changed since then, and I suspect that the same plan would be rejected today by the Arabs as it was then. <br /><br />For those who continue to insist that the Arabs have some rights to Jerusalem, Trump's announcement has been interpreted as reducing the possibility of this becoming reality.&nbsp; They consider that Trump effectively took Jerusalem off the table from any peace talks that may take place.&nbsp; If they were more honest, I believe that they would acknowledge the fact that the Arabs have no current plan or intention to sit down in peace talks anytime soon.&nbsp; In my view, this means that Jerusalem was never really on the table at all.<br /><br />Jerusalem has never been freer, than since the city was unified under Israeli rule in 1967.&nbsp; All religions are free to worship at their holy sites, providing that they come with intention of behaving respectfully and peacefully.&nbsp; While Jews were denied the right to visit the holiest site in Judaism when it was under Arab rule, Muslims have been assured the rights to their holy sites under Israeli rule.&nbsp; The Israeli government has rebuilt the city of Jerusalem, improved its infrastructure and made it more desirable for all those who wish to live in and visit the city.&nbsp; This should surely be something that influences the views of the international community regarding the most appropriate entity to rule over Jerusalem.&nbsp; The argument that many of the citizens of Jerusalem, particularly in East Jerusalem, are Arabs who have no desire to be citizens of Israel is also used as reason why this area of the city should be ruled by a future Palestinian state.&nbsp; It should be known that these residents were offered the right to Israeli citizenship, and have many rights as permanent residents of Jerusalem and Israel in spite of their rejection.&nbsp; Just because entire neighbourhoods of Paris are dominated by Muslim residents, does not mean that these neighbourhoods should form part of an Arab state. Why is this different in Jerusalem?<br /><br />The Trump announcement is not a trailblazer, and changes nothing in reality.&nbsp; It is essentially an insignificant act for Israelis, Arabs and the international community.&nbsp; Israelis may appreciate the statements of support for the Jewish right to Israel and Jerusalem, but are essentially indifferent to Trump's announcement.&nbsp; They care little about what was said, and would have cared the same if it was not said.&nbsp; Israelis are determined that the united city of Jerusalem be the capital of Israel, and nothing has changed.<br /><br />There can be no doubt that the announcement by Trump has been seized upon by those who are determined to destroy Israel.&nbsp; They have taken the opportunity to further their aim of ultimately ridding Jerusalem and Israel of Jews.&nbsp; Trump's announcement is being used to justify this in a manner that is politically correct.&nbsp; It seems entirely acceptable to launch rockets into Israel, to attack Israeli soldiers and to riot in Bangladesh in response to the Trump announcement.&nbsp; The announcement itself was of no consequence, and nothing has changed.&nbsp; Jerusalem will continue to be the capital of Israel whether the world accepts this or not.&nbsp; Perhaps this is what Trump came to realise.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-60209963782970322872017-07-15T21:30:00.000+03:002017-07-18T08:26:34.988+03:00Stretching the Limits of Self-HatredThis was a statement issued on 6 July 2017 in South Africa.&nbsp; My response follows below.<br /><h2 class="entry-title"><i>South African Jews welcome downgrading of SA Embassy in Israel</i></h2><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>We as Jewish South Africans warmly welcome the ANC National Policy Conference resolution and recommendation to downgrade the South African Embassy in Tel Aviv. This is a concrete step beyond rhetoric. Israel must be held accountable for its crimes against the Palestinian people and a clear message must be sent that there are no normal relations with an abnormal regime.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>The ANC National Policy Conference, which ended yesterday, has called for “the downgrading of the SA Embassy in Israel to send a strong message about Israel’s continued illegal occupation of Palestine and the continued human rights abuses against the peoples of Palestine”.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>We would like to draw attention to the letter that our Jewish Israeli counterparts sent to the ANC ahead of its recent National Policy Conference. In their letter supporting the call for a downgrade of relations and support of the BDS boycott of Israel, our Israeli friends explained that:</i></div><div style="padding-left: 60px; text-align: justify;"><i>“After many years of trying to change our society from within, we have come to the conclusion that an international campaign, such as the boycott against apartheid South Africa, is necessary to change the situation here. We believe that the time has come for further measures. Governments including the South African government should be downgrading diplomatic relations and their embassies in Israel, to send a clear message to Israel that its violations of international law are unacceptable. Ultimately we call on the ANC to strengthen its support for the BDS movement and Palestinian struggle.”</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>We welcome the fact that the ANC has heeded the call by Palestinians as well as those progressive Israelis who are working towards a just peace in Israel-Palestine.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Finally we would like to add that we stand against all forms of racism and antisemitism and for the freedom, dignity and full human rights of all. To boycott Israel today is not antisemitic, it is an affirmation of these principles.</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><b>For more information please contact:</b></i><br /><i><b> Allan Horwitz 0825128188</b></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><b>*South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) is an organisation of South African Jews wishing to see a just resolution to the conflict in Historic Palestine. We strongly believe in the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, “Repairing the World” which embodies social action and the pursuit of social justice. Historically Jews have been involved struggles to achieve social justice and we are proud to continue this tradition. Furthermore, as Jews, we feel obliged to speak out against injustice purportedly carried out in our name.</b></i></div><br /><b></b><br /><br />Dear Allan and SAJFP members, <br /><br />I was somewhat surprised to read your need to put out a statement, in which you expressed support for the resolution passed by the ANC National Policy Conference to downgrade the South African embassy in Tel Aviv.&nbsp; This resolution was passed by the ANC conference "to send a strong message about Israel’s continued illegal occupation of Palestine and the continued human rights abuses against the peoples of Palestine".&nbsp; According to your statement, "This is a concrete step beyond rhetoric. Israel must be held accountable for its crimes against the Palestinian people and a clear message must be sent that there are no normal relations with an abnormal regime".<br /><br />There are a number of points in your statement that I feel need to be challenged.&nbsp; Why do you consider Israel to be an "abnormal regime"?&nbsp; Having lived in Israel for the past almost 20 years, and having travelled extensively to other countries during that time, I have no doubt that Israel is a perfectly normal regime forced to deal with an abnormal situation.&nbsp; Israel is the only country in the world that constantly has its right to exist challenged unashamedly, and is frequently threatened with destruction.&nbsp; This is abnormal.&nbsp; Not only that, but the terror attacks and threats that Israel is subjected to on a daily basis can surely also not be considered normal.&nbsp; Despite this patently abnormal situation, Israel has done a remarkable job of surviving and growing, even when compared to so-called normal regimes.&nbsp; It seems unjust that Israel's actions to defend herself against the abnormal threats that she faces, are judged by normal countries according to scales that can only be relevant in their normal situations.&nbsp; Surely the time has come for the international community, and Jews around the world like you, to recognise this fact and to give Israel the support that she needs to survive under the abnormal threat in which she finds herself?&nbsp; It is disappointing that you choose not to recognise this in your statement, and fail to criticise those who have the audacity to threaten the existence of a sovereign nation.<br /><br />I would like to pick up on your reference to "Israel’s continued illegal occupation of Palestine and the continued human rights abuses against the peoples of Palestine".&nbsp; At the current time, Israel has ceded land in Judea and Samaria to be governed by the Palestinian Authority.&nbsp; Additionally, Israel gave the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority, which was later taken over by Hamas.&nbsp; It is on record that Israel would have already given this to an internationally-recognised state of Palestine, as long as the Palestinians would recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state along its border.&nbsp; This recognition has been withheld, and no peace agreement has been reached as a result.&nbsp; Why do I not see any recognition by you of the ongoing attempts by Muslims to take over the entire State of Israel?&nbsp; This is in the charter of both Hamas and Fatah, and is plain for anybody to see.&nbsp; Where is the recognition of the fact that Israel has ceded land to be governed by the Palestinians, only to find that this land has been turned into a launchpad for missile attacks against Israel?&nbsp; If it was your family living under this constant missile barrage, how likely would you be to give more land to them to be used in this way?&nbsp; So please would you explain what you mean by "illegal occupation" and "human rights abuses".&nbsp; How can Israel be guilty of human rights abuses against Palestinians when their own authorities govern over them?&nbsp; I think that it would be more accurate for you to accuse the Palestinians of human rights abuses against Israelis for the constant terror attacks that Israelis are forced to endure.<br /><br />I am not sure who the "progressive Israelis" are that would have sent the letter to the ANC ahead of the policy conference.&nbsp; Why did you not say who they are?&nbsp; What are their names?&nbsp; How many Israelis are really represented by the letter?&nbsp; I believe that you will find that all Israelis, and not only "progressive Israelis", are eager to work towards supporting a just peace.&nbsp; But it needs to be that - a <b>just</b> peace.&nbsp; Just for both sides.&nbsp; This means recognising the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.&nbsp; Failure to receive this formal recognition would be unjust.&nbsp; And I cannot imagine any nation, that has its wits about them, that would agree to allow the formation of a country along its borders that has the intention of destroying it.&nbsp; Why would you think that this ridiculous step would be OK for the Jewish state?<br /><br />If you truly stand against all forms of racism and antisemitism, and for the freedom, dignity and full human rights of all, why is it that you do not support the rights of Jews and Israelis to live in freedom and with dignity?&nbsp; Why do you choose to be self-hating and only find reasons to criticise Israel?&nbsp; If you were not self-hating, I would expect you to call out acts of anti-Semitism and other abusers of human rights.&nbsp; I did not notice you speaking out against anti-Semitism in Hungary and France and the UK?&nbsp; Your silence on this is deafening.&nbsp; And where is your criticism of human rights abuses in North Korea or Russia or China or Burma or Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe or Soweto or Nkandla?&nbsp; Why has Israel earned the special right to be singled out by you?&nbsp; You claim to feel obliged to speak out against injustice purportedly carried out in your name.&nbsp; I am sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this is carried out in your name.&nbsp; It is carried out in the name of self-respecting Israelis who wish to survive as proud Jews.&nbsp; You are just the fortunate beneficiary of these actions.&nbsp; You are a just a lucky South African Jew, who has been gifted the opportunity to live in peace and security by virtue of the existence of a strong State of Israel, that is willing to defend and give power to Jews around the world, even the self-hating ones.<br /><br />The anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli actions carried out by our enemies around the world, could be compared in many ways to the Shoah perpetrated against our people by the Nazis.&nbsp; The fervour with which terrorists rise up to murder our people, with no qualms about risking their own lives in the process, surpasses anything that we saw during the Nazi regime.&nbsp; The amount of money and the national resources of governments that are devoted to endeavours to murder Jews and destroy Israel as the Jewish state, are equivalent to those seen during the Nazi regime.&nbsp; The national infrastructure that is being built in Gaza (and in other countries), with the sole purpose of destroying Israel, can be compared to the scale of the concentration camps, railway systems and crematoria built to destroy Jews in Europe.&nbsp; There is only one key difference today, that makes all of what we are experiencing different from the terrible years of the Shoah.&nbsp; That difference is the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish army.&nbsp; Without this, Jews would today be experiencing a Shoah of the proportions experienced during the time of the Nazis.&nbsp; So you are extremely fortunate to benefit from this.&nbsp; The State of Israel, that you so vociferously criticise, is exactly what gives you the freedom to live in safety in your comfortable existence South Africa and express your misguided opinions.&nbsp; Where is your recognition of this fact?<br /><br />I find it ironic that you choose to express your criticism of Israel, and your call for a boycott that is supposedly not anti-Semitic, by supporting the decision taken by the ANC National Policy Conference.&nbsp; It is almost as if this is the body that represents the gold standard of upholding human rights.&nbsp; We all know that nothing could be further from the truth, and the ANC representatives at the conference may be better advised to examine the situation nearer to home before choosing to criticise a country that only has the desire to defend itself to survive.&nbsp; I would have thought that you, as a Jew in South Africa, would understand that.<br /><br />I would like to conclude by recognising that the State of Israel is not beyond criticism, nor is every action that it takes worthy of support.&nbsp; Like every country and every nation, Israel has its moments, both good and bad.&nbsp; And she has a legal system and a judiciary that is designed to police this.&nbsp; Feel free to say what you wish about that.&nbsp; But please save your ill-considered criticisms of Israel's attempts to survive.&nbsp; You place yourself firmly in the camp of those who are fighting for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.&nbsp; Jews in the Shoah were forced to understand the hard way that criticising their fellow Jews would not save them from the hands of the Nazis, and from suffering the same fate as all the others.&nbsp; You should learn from history, because you will not be saved from this fate either. <br /><br />Yours<br />Anthony ReichAnthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-54765328168105859602017-07-13T08:30:00.000+03:002017-07-13T08:30:07.099+03:00The Unifying Wall That Divides<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://tcjewfolk.com/wp-content/uploads//2016/01/Kotel_proposal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="463" data-original-width="800" height="185" src="https://tcjewfolk.com/wp-content/uploads//2016/01/Kotel_proposal.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image from tcjewfolk.com</i></td></tr></tbody></table>A decision by the Israeli government not to approve the construction of an egalitarian prayer area at the Kotel, the Western Wall of the Temple Compound in Jerusalem and Judaism's holiest site, has opened wounds between the Israeli government and the American Jewish community.&nbsp; It is ironic that, only weeks after celebrating the 50th anniversary of the return of the Kotel to Jewish hands, this iconic landmark and holy site is giving rise to huge divisions between different groups of Jews.&nbsp; How differently the Kotel is being viewed now, as opposed to 50 years ago when Jews around the world were rejoicing in unison at the prospects of being able to visit and pray at this site.<br /><br />Things have clearly changed over the past 50 years that we are fighting amongst ourselves over this matter.&nbsp; Fifty years ago,&nbsp; Jews would have been happy simply to be able to visit and pray at the Kotel. It would not have mattered if this would have been by a group of men or women on their own, or by mixed groups and families.&nbsp; After so many years of having been denied the right to visit the site of the Temple, the details of how prayers would be offered there were unimportant.<br /><br />Fast-forward fifty years, and the Kotel Plaza has been developed to allow and encourage Jews to visit the site for historical and religious reasons.&nbsp; It was developed according to the tenets of Jewish religious law as befits a site of prayer.&nbsp; This means that men and women have been provided with separate prayer areas.&nbsp; This separation is not a new or alien concept amongst Orthodox and traditional Jews.&nbsp; It is something that is expected at holy sites and areas of prayer.&nbsp; And while Orthodox or traditional strands of Judaism are dominant in Israel amongst those who wish to identify with the Jewish religion, the same is not true outside of Israel.&nbsp; There, the Reform and Conservative strands of Judaism are more popular.&nbsp; These strands follow a somewhat less stringent interpretation of the Orthodox Jewish laws, either because followers have studied the laws and rejected some of the stringencies arising from Rabbinical interpretations and pronouncements over the years, or because it is simply easier to follow.&nbsp; In a world where the rate of assimilation amongst Jewish communities around the world is running at alarmingly high levels, any form of identification with Judaism can be considered to be positive.&nbsp; It is for this reason that the Reform and Conservative communities, particularly those in the USA, have gathered enormous power as they manage to stem some of the massive flows of Jews away from the faith.<br /><br />The battle lines between Orthodox and Reform/Conservative Jews have long been drawn.&nbsp; The Orthodox communities have done all that they can to reject the dilutions that are inherent with the Reform/Conservative view on the Jewish world.&nbsp; They have worked to discredit and delegitimise them, even accusing them of not being Jews.&nbsp; The Reform and Conservative communities, particularly those in the US that command power and have access to large sums of money, have used this to fight back against the Orthodox world view.&nbsp; The battle over the Kotel is simply an extension of this power struggle between the different groups.&nbsp; The Reform/Conservative strand believes that their followers (and other non-religious people) would prefer to visit and pray at the Kotel in an area that is mixed with men and women - an egalitarian area.&nbsp; This would also allow families to enjoy this experience together.&nbsp; The Orthodox are absolutely opposed to this, claiming that the Kotel is a religious place of prayer that requires separation of the sexes according to the traditional Jewish Law.<br /><br />The State of Israel has set out not to distinguish between different groups of Jews.&nbsp; In fact, the Law of Return that grants immediate Israeli citizenship to Jews, has chosen to use Hitler's definition of Jews rather than going by Jewish religious law.&nbsp; Hitler decided that any person who had one Jewish grandparent would be eligible to be treated inhumanely by his regime, and to be part of his plan of extermination.&nbsp; The Israeli government decided that if a person was good enough to be exterminated by Hitler, they would be good enough to be granted immediate Israeli citizenship.&nbsp; This means that some of those who have been granted immediate citizenship under this law, are not Jewish according to Jewish Law.&nbsp; This demonstrates the extent to which the State of Israel has opened its arms to many different groups of Jews - and even to some non-Jews.&nbsp; Under the circumstances, it seems as though the government would be sympathetic to the claims of the non-Orthodox groups at the Kotel.<br /><br />Even though the government would probably wish to be more accommodating to the demands of the non-Orthodox lobby, and even previously agreed to their demands for an egalitarian prayer area at the Kotel, politics always seems to come first.&nbsp; The current government coalition can only exist with the support of the ultra-Orthodox parties in the Knesset.&nbsp; Upon hearing of the government's plan to accommodate an egalitarian prayer area at the Kotel, the ultra-Orthodox parties flexed their muscles and threatened to bring the government down if the plan was implemented.&nbsp; Prime Minister Netanyahu went into survival mode, even at the expense of his relationship with US Jews, and acquiesced to the demands of his coalition partners.&nbsp; At least for now.&nbsp; American Jews responded in disgust by withdrawing their support for the Israeli government.<br /><br />Does the Reform/Conservative lobby have a valid case in declaring open warfare on the Israeli government as a result of this decision?&nbsp; The Israeli government has said that an egalitarian prayer area does already exist, but it is just not in the premier Kotel Plaza area.&nbsp; The non-Orthodox lobby claims that this is not good enough, and effectively treats some Jews as second-class.&nbsp; Their demand is to have the egalitarian area front and centre alongside the other prayer areas in the Kotel Plaza.&nbsp; The battle is one of power and of wills. This is a battle between different groups of Jews, each of whom demands that their way is accepted, and with the Israeli government being called upon to act as referee.<br /><br />Is the Kotel a Jewish national asset that should be required to accommodate all groups of Jews in a way that is to their liking?&nbsp; Or is it an asset that belongs to the religious, as the holiest religious site in Judaism?&nbsp; Does creating an egalitarian prayer area alongside the other areas serve to dilute its importance and religious status?&nbsp; Is this issue important enough to be worth creating a rift amongst different groups of Jews?<br /><br />I don't have answers to any of these questions.&nbsp; And even if I did, I feel sure that the warring parties would not consider my point of view in formulating their reactions to the situation.&nbsp; Of course, the Israeli government will always act in way that promotes its own best interests.&nbsp; At the moment, that requires it to take the side of the ultra-Orthodox parties and freeze the egalitarian prayer area.<br /><br />In my opinion, the situation requires tolerance and understanding by all parties.&nbsp; It is natural to expect that the holiest site in Judaism should have some of the most stringent rules attached to it, and that Orthodox Jewish law should apply.&nbsp; We live at a time, however, when Jews around the world should find reasons to unite, and not reasons to be in conflict with each other, especially over a site as central as the Kotel.&nbsp; The ultra-Orthodox parties are not generally known for making efforts to unify different strands of Judaism, but it is never too late.&nbsp; They should know that no man is in a position to judge another one, nor judge his interpretation of the religion.&nbsp; So they should be taking the moral high ground on this matter in an attempt to accommodate the requests of the non-Orthodox groups.&nbsp; Surely accommodating an egalitarian space could be acceptable, as long as they continue to have their separated areas?&nbsp; The situation now requires unity and not conflict.&nbsp; It is incumbent upon the parties to sit down, and find a compromise that will be acceptable to all.&nbsp; Is this too much to expect?Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-72339090166842299692017-06-02T18:00:00.000+03:002017-06-02T18:00:21.060+03:00Trump - Saviour or Poison Chalice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=355820&amp;w=898&amp;h=628" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=355820&amp;w=898&amp;h=628" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="800" height="223" width="320" /></a></div>The visit to Israel by US President Donald Trump has come and gone, and the analysts will undoubtedly still spend some time considering their verdicts dissecting each aspect of the visit.&nbsp; At first glance, the visit appears to have been filled with symbolism but short on substance.&nbsp; Following a turbulent first few months in office for the US president, there are many who wonder whether his support for Israel is welcome, or whether it is turning out to be more of a poison chalice than a helping hand.<br /><br />Trump has been openly and publicly supportive of Israel's position, even from before he was elected.&nbsp; His high profile campaign promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been the subject of much debate and controversy.&nbsp; When his victory in the presidential election was revealed, the Israeli government (and many other Israelis) welcomed his election with the hope and expectation that this would change the anti-Israel bias within the US government and elsewhere that was such a feature of the Obama administration.&nbsp; And changes have certainly been felt since his election.<br /><br />The current atmosphere at the United Nations is entirely different from the one that ruled during 2016 and before.&nbsp; Part of this change can be attributed to new UN Secretary General António Guterres, who is much less inclined to entertain the constant barrage of anti-Israel sentiment that prevailed under Ban Ki Moon.&nbsp; Much of the change is, however, thanks to new US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and the change in policy that she represents.&nbsp; She has imposed the Trump administration's support for Israel at the UN in the strongest possible terms.&nbsp; The days of raising frivolous anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Security Council are over for now.&nbsp; The international community has understood that these will be vetoed by the US, and that there is little point in raising them under the current administration.&nbsp; Haley has been vociferous in her condemnation of the constant attempts to paint Israel in a negative light.&nbsp; There can be little doubt that the changes at the UN have a great deal to do with the new man in the White House. <br /><br />President Trump's visit to Israel was highly symbolic.&nbsp; He made Israel one of the stops on his maiden foreign tour since becoming president.&nbsp; He visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem during his visit, becoming the first US president to make this visit while in office.&nbsp; He emphasized to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that funding terror is not acceptable.&nbsp; He reinforced the support that Israel will always enjoy from his administration.&nbsp; In spite of this, he stayed clear of the key substantive issues confronting Israel and the region now.&nbsp; He did not raise the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem.&nbsp; No mention was made of the constant accusations against Israel regarding construction in Judea and Samaria.&nbsp; Nothing was said about Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, or accusations regarding Israel's claims to Jerusalem as its capital.&nbsp; His outward shows of support were all seized upon, recognised and appreciated by the majority of Israelis.&nbsp; The lack of meaningful progress in getting Israelis and Palestinians to sit down around the peace table is what the international community has seized upon.<br /><br />The issue that Israel needs to consider is Trump's overall standing within the USA and further afield.&nbsp; It was clear before he arrived in Israel that Trump has many enemies at home, and that they are determined to keep him on the back foot by levelling all types of accusations against him.&nbsp; Trump's own conduct in defending these accusations has certainly not helped his cause.&nbsp; And Israel was dragged into the crossfire when Trump was accused of sharing secret intelligence received from Israel with Russia.&nbsp; If true, this would be a serious violation of trust, and norms associated&nbsp; with the sharing of intelligence information.<br /><br />Distrust for Trump appears to be spreading rapidly within the international community as well.&nbsp; Trump's recent appearances at the G7 and NATO meetings did not show him to be in accord with any of the other western leaders.&nbsp; On the contrary, there are indications that Trump is being sidelined from the key international organisations.<br /><br />Winston Churchill famously said, “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”&nbsp; This is an art that Trump has clearly not yet mastered.&nbsp; Even though Trump frequently says things that many people are thinking, he has not yet discovered how to say it in a way that does not create enemies.&nbsp; While Israel has no particular issue with Trump's popularity (or lack of it) in the international community, there is a danger that Israel will be tarred with the same negative brush if she is seen to be too closely associated with Trump. <br /><br />There is no doubt that Israel has already gained a great deal from the change of administration in the White House.&nbsp; Trump's influence over US domestic and international policy towards Israel, and his influence over proceedings at the UN cannot be under-estimated.&nbsp; Israel will certainly wish to see more of that in the future.&nbsp; There is a danger, however, that the association with Trump could prove to be negative in Israel's relationships with other countries around the world.&nbsp; If Trump continues to completely ignore the accepted rules of international engagement while representing his contrary views, he will quickly became a pariah in the international community.&nbsp; And, even if Israel wishes to stay close to Trump to benefit from his supportive views and actions, the association with him may proved negative.&nbsp;<br /><br />The prime minister and the Israeli government has a tough job to navigate a careful path to take advantage of the emerging situation, without losing too much in the process.&nbsp; Will Trump prove to be the good things for Israel that were predicted, or a poison chalice?&nbsp; Only time will tell.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-89296104057491391612017-05-01T09:00:00.000+03:002017-05-01T09:00:09.340+03:00Damned If You Do, and Damned If You Don't<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://institut-medea.be/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Marwan_Barghouti.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://institut-medea.be/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Marwan_Barghouti.jpg" /></a></div>Much has been written and discussed about Marwan Barghouti's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/opinion/palestinian-hunger-strik-prisoners-call-for-justice.html?_r=0" target="_blank">article</a> in The New York Times, trying to explain why prisoners in Israeli jails have embarked on a hunger strike.&nbsp; Most of the comments have surrounded the factual inaccuracies in Barghouti's statements and accusations against Israel.&nbsp; Or they have questioned why The New York Times had the audacity to allow such subversive trash to be published at all.&nbsp; My question is a different one.&nbsp; I ask whether it is right that Israel should allow its prisoners (whether they are criminal or political prisoners) the freedom that it does, and that allows people like Barghouti to make such ludicrous claims in public?<br /><br />It is somewhat ironic that Barghouti accuses Israel of operating an "inhumane system" in its attempt "to break the spirit of prisoners" and of "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions against the Palestinian people", while still having the freedom to publish these accusations in The New York Times.&nbsp; Surely this is a contradiction in terms?&nbsp; If Israel was so intent on breaching the Geneva Convention, it would surely do more to ensure that prisoners do not have access to publish their articles in international publications.&nbsp; Or at least opppose violations more vehemently than it has.&nbsp; It is common knowledge that prisoners in many systems, even in countries that pride themselves on their democracy, are not allowed access to go unpunished when they publish their complaints and accusations in public.&nbsp; And yet, Israel has hardly responded to Barghouti's article to punish him.<br /><br />In many countries around the world, even in democratic countries, prisoners have significant restrictions placed on them.&nbsp; This is even more true of those convicted of terror-related crimes, or who are considered the most dangerous after committing very extreme crimes.&nbsp; In some cases, these restrictions can result in the opposite outcome of the one that the authorities hope to achieve.&nbsp; In the case of Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years as a political prisoner in South Africa, his popularity grew substantially while he was in prison and isolated from the outside world.&nbsp; He had no access to the media, and his likeness was not allowed to be published at all by the press.&nbsp; Despite this, the campaign for his release only grew more over time.&nbsp; The same was true of Prisoner of Zion Natan Sharansky when he was imprisoned in the Soviet Union.&nbsp; Despite these examples, the act of isolating prisoners seems, in the most part, to keep them out of the public view.&nbsp; This raises the question as to whether a stronger reaction to Marghouti would not be in Israel's best interests?<br /><br />In spite of accusations of Israel acting in a racist way towards Arabs, and even being called an "Apartheid country", Israel values its democracy and freedom of speech almost above everything else.&nbsp; And while security considerations are always of paramount importance in every situation, the notion of preserving democracy and freedom has a very high priority.&nbsp; The Jewish people have suffered so much discriminatory behaviour over the generations that it would be anathema to have a Jewish country that does not embody democracy and freedom in every respect.&nbsp; Even if it means being tolerant of those who seek Israel's destruction. <br /><br />It seems as though the furore over the article has died down, and the hunger strike in the prisons has been abandoned by large numbers of prisoners.&nbsp; It is ironic that some of the most important facts about the treatment of prisoners in Israeli jails seem to have been kept low-key in the whole uproar.&nbsp; The system of housing prisoners in jails is well demonstrated in the list of the improvements that the prisoners are striking for.&nbsp; These include;<br />- increasing family visits from the current 45 minutes a time, to 90 minutes a time<br />- increasing the frequency of family visits from once a month to twice a month<br />- allowing the prisoners an increased selection of TV channels in the prisons<br />- allowing the prisoners greater education facilities.<br />Comparing this to the way in which Israeli prisoners have been held by Arab states over the years seems a joke.&nbsp; And yet, The New York Times sees it fit to cover this matter.&nbsp; This hardly points to the systematic violations of the Geneva Convention that Barghouti accuses of.<br /><br />With the story having almost burnt itself out, perhaps it was the right decision by the Israeli government not to respond more actively to the article that was published.&nbsp; In Israel's case, the criticism seems to come whether she has done something, and equally when she has not.&nbsp; Ultimately, we need to feel good with ourselves that we are doing what allows us to feel good when we look at ourselves in the mirror.&nbsp; I believe that this is what has been achieved in this case.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-78061882553789201122017-04-15T23:30:00.000+03:002017-04-15T23:30:18.309+03:00Action At Last<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Assad-Trump-678x381.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Assad-Trump-678x381.jpg" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>The decision by US President Donald Trump to launch an attack in Syria following the recent chemical weapons attack has been widely welcomed by Israelis.&nbsp; It is also a welcome change from the policy that was pursued by the US during the presidency of Barack Obama.&nbsp; Finally, the free world has a leader who is prepared to take action rather than utter words.<br /><br />Last Friday, President Trump really showed what he is made of.&nbsp; Following the horrendous chemical weapons attack that was carried out earlier last week by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against his own people, Trump took a few days to consider the situation and gather the required evidence before striking in retaliation.&nbsp; The retaliation was not against a violation of any US interest in particular.&nbsp; The retaliation was rather against the violation of innocent women and children, and against the unacceptable use of chemical weapons.<br /><br />Over the past few years, the world became used to the Obama style of doing things.&nbsp; Obama threatened, but never made good on his threats.&nbsp; So, it comes as no surprise that Assad gambled on the US not responding to this chemical attack.&nbsp; After all, previous chemical attacks went unanswered.&nbsp; In fact, it was the deal that was struck during Obama's presidency in 2013, that enabled this chemical attack.&nbsp; When Obama discovered the extent of the stockpile of Syria's chemical weapons, he decided to cut Assad some slack and allow him a way to diplomatically and elegantly dispose of them.&nbsp; The deal struck with Syria by negotiation between the USA and Russia involved the dismantling of no fewer than 12 chemical weapons productions facilities, numerous storage locations, a research and development facility and the destruction of thousands of tons of chemical agents.<br /><br />But, under the noses of the international supervisors, and with the tacit knowledge of Obama and other members of the international community, Assad succeeded in retaining some of these chemical weapons for himself.&nbsp; It was one of the worst-kept secrets in the Middle East.&nbsp; The Israeli intelligence community believed that the Assad government retained a "residual" chemical stockpile of somewhere between several hundred kilograms to several tons of chemical weapons, about 1% of its original stockpile.&nbsp; Obama's reaction was fairly predictable.&nbsp; He turned a blind eye.&nbsp; Last week's Sarin attack by Assad is the public evidence of Obama's failed policy.<br /><br />In taking action in the way that he did, Trump sent out a number of very important messages.&nbsp; The first was a very clear message to Assad and his army.&nbsp; This US president will not tolerate bully-boy tactics being employed against innocent women and children, even if he is still in the honeymoon period of his presidency.&nbsp; And he will not tolerate the use of illegal chemical weapons, even if his predecessor was prepared to turn a blind eye to this.<br /><br />The second message was sent to Russian President Vladimir Putin.&nbsp; He has been Assad's patron for a number of years.&nbsp; Initially, this support was in the form of supplying weapons and vetoing resolutions against Assad at the UN Security Council.&nbsp; While this support has continued, it has also escalated to include Russian boots on the ground in Syria and Russian warplanes in Syrian air space.&nbsp; Even though Trump was determined to forge a closer link with Putin when he first entered office, the message to Putin is that everything has changed.&nbsp; Even Russian support, and the possibility of damaging US relations with Russia will not prevent Trump from taking action against Assad.<br /><br />The third message was sent to other rogue nations of the world, including Iran and North Korea.&nbsp; In a similar way to how the deal with Syria was struck, Obama also struck a deal with Iran.&nbsp; This deal involved nuclear weapons rather than Syria's chemical weapons.&nbsp; The stakes were much higher, but the lack of backbone on Obama's part was exactly the same.&nbsp; He decided to strike the deal with Iran despite the obvious signs that Iran was pulling the wool over the eyes of the countries signing the deal.&nbsp; Despite Obama's attempts to placate Israel and other detractors of the agreement, its blaring shortcomings were obvious to anybody with a mediocre understanding of the situation.&nbsp; Trump, however, sends a completely different message.&nbsp; He has started his time in office by questioning the logic of the deal with Iran.&nbsp; And the attack against the Syrian forces sends an even stronger message that Trump will not tolerate any deception or aggression on the part of Iran, and also North Korea.<br /><br />For the Israeli government, the intervention is welcome.&nbsp; Israel is typically a country for whom actions speak louder than words, even if the actions are frequently very quietly done.&nbsp; It is inconceivable that the Jewish state could idly watch from the sidelines when chemicals are being used to kill innocent women and children.&nbsp; The memory of the world standing idly by and watching during the Holocaust is still too fresh in our minds.&nbsp; It is a great dilemma about how to respond to a situation like the chemical attack in Syria.&nbsp; On the one hand, Israel would wish to respond with force to the use of chemical weapons.&nbsp; Doing so would, however, seemingly play into Syria's hands, and immediately embroil Israel in the war in Syria.&nbsp; Given the history of the two countries and the way in which friendships line up, this could potentially involve Iran, Syria and the USA very quickly indeed.&nbsp; This would escalate to a regional conflict, and perhaps even result in a conflict that goes beyond the regional borders. <br /><br />Trump's strong message shows decisive leadership, and finally a willingness to confront rogue states head-on.&nbsp; This is welcome.&nbsp; While debates and condemnations at the UN and other forums may have their place, action on the ground sends a much stronger and more serious message.&nbsp;&nbsp; And his action also saved Israel from, once again, having to respond in a way that will not result in a war involving multiple countries.<br /><br />We watch with bated breath to see how things develop with Iran.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-70032252527548959772017-03-15T09:00:00.000+02:002017-03-15T09:00:21.146+02:00Israel Apartheid Week - A Contradiction in Terms<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.israelifrontline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IMG-9807jpg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.israelifrontline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IMG-9807jpg.jpg" height="239" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Source; Haaretz</i></td></tr></tbody></table>Every year, many universities around the world hold an event on their campuses know as "Israel Apartheid Week".&nbsp; The event is justified by the fact that it brings the so-called discriminatory behaviour of Israel to the attention of the general public to allow people to know "what is really happening in Israel and the Palestinian Territories".&nbsp; There could be no greater contradiction in terms than this.<br /><br />I am trying to work out why the focus is on Israel's reportedly discriminatory behaviour in particular?&nbsp; Why Israel, as opposed to discrimination by the Turks against the Kurds, or discrimination by the Chinese against the Nepalese, or by the Russians against the Ukrainians in Crimea and other former Soviet countries, or the discrimination in many African countries, or discrimination by many Muslim countries against their minorities and foreign workers, and even their own citizens?&nbsp; There are surely so many countries on the list of those behaving badly, that universities could mark some country's discriminatory behaviour every week of the year.&nbsp; While one form of discrimination does not justify another, the question is why Israel is singled out for an apartheid week of its own?&nbsp; Surely this is discriminatory in itself?&nbsp; It brings into question the real motivations of those who are the main instigators behind this highly questionable event, and how come it has gained so much traction around the world that it is repeated on an annual basis?<br /><br />The first question that arises, is whether Israel really behaves in the discriminatory manner that is alleged by so many in the international community?&nbsp; Given the level of threat and violence that is a constant in and around Israel, it is easy to conclude that Israel discriminates against Arabs.&nbsp; News broadcasts frequently show IDF soldiers in action against those who are presented as innocent civilians.&nbsp; Israeli is constantly engaged in one military operation or another.&nbsp; This supports the easy conclusion about Israel being discriminatory against Arabs.&nbsp; This conclusion, however, would be misguided.&nbsp; Instead, it would be more accurate to say that Israel discriminates against the threat of terror and violence that she has to deal with.&nbsp; And judging Israel's actions using a standard for a western country, that is not subject to the same risks and terror attacks, is not an even playing field.&nbsp; It would be interesting to see how other peace-seeking countries would respond to the set of circumstances that Israel finds herself in.&nbsp; I suspect that Israel's so-called "discrimination" would be seen in an entirely different light.&nbsp; Using the term "apartheid" to describe Israel is simply an emotive term trying to play on the ultimate success of the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa.&nbsp; There is no link between what is happening in Israel today, and Apartheid South Africa.<br /><br />Many people try to put constant attacks on Israel in the international community simply down to Israel-hating and Jew-hating.&nbsp; It is easy to say that these are anti-Semitic activities dressed up with a political justification, and leave it at that.&nbsp; And, even though much of that is probably true, I don't feel satisfied with leaving the explanation there.&nbsp; It is important for me to put this into greater context.&nbsp; I wish to understand where this comes from, and why it is rearing its head at this time and in this way.<br /><br />The anti-Israel activities that have become common around the world, and which are epitomised in Israel Apartheid Week, bear resemblance to the wave of anti-Semitism that was in evidence in the years leading up to the Second World War.&nbsp; We know that anti-Semitism is an age-old phenomenon that has no real explanation or justification.&nbsp; We know that it has been allowed to rise and fall, largely by the general tolerance and acceptance of the general community.&nbsp; It increased in its intensity when leaders in the international community have encouraged it, or tolerated it.&nbsp; Hitler's Germany is the best example when the state encouraged anti-Semitism on an industrial scale at the highest levels.&nbsp; The man in the street needed little further encouragement, and the results are one of the most shameful periods in history.&nbsp; It is my contention that the constant criticism of Israel at the highest echelons of the international community, is effectively encouraging the man in the street to believe that his hatred towards Israel and Jews is justified and consistent with public opinion.&nbsp; It is inconceivable that Israel justifies being the one country in the world with more negative resolutions against her at the UN Security Council, or having a permanent agenda item to answer to at the UN Human Rights Council.&nbsp; These unjustified actions are encouraging anti-Semitism on the streets of Europe, the USA and around the world.<br /><br />We have just celebrated the Jewish festival of Purim, that marks victory over unjustified anti-Semitism in Persia more than 2,000 years ago.&nbsp; It seems that little has changed since then.&nbsp; Not in the modern-day Persian country of Iran, and not elsewhere around the world.&nbsp; People are taking their cue from international leaders who find it acceptable to spew venom against Israel at every chance.&nbsp; And to turn international institutions, particularly those connected to the UN, into tools of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment.&nbsp; This provides the green light for people around the world to feel that it is politically correct and acceptable to focus their hatred towards Israel.&nbsp; This is clearly a form of anti-Semitism, in the same way as much of the anti-Israel activity is simply anti-Semitism dressed up to look politically acceptable.<br /><br />Surely the time has come for international leaders to show true leadership and stop the discrimination once and for all.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-26176461683574089952017-02-01T00:00:00.003+02:002017-02-01T00:00:24.438+02:00Making Use of the Trump Card<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Jerusalem_from_mt_olives.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Jerusalem_from_mt_olives.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Donald Trump has finally taken office as the 45th president of the United States and, along with it, many expectations from different quarters regarding the numerous outspoken promises made during his campaign for election.&nbsp; One of the more controversial campaign promises made, was to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.&nbsp; This point has been the subject of much focus, and some question marks over whether Trump will ultimately see this promise through.<br /><br />Since first hearing of this promise by Trump, I have tried to work out what would have driven him to decide to make this undertaking.&nbsp; It seems fairly clear to me that Trump decided to make this promise of his own volition, and not as a result of a particular request by any party.&nbsp; So, what would have given Trump the reason to decide to make this matter a central part of his foreign policy in relation to the Middle East?&nbsp; Did he think that this would be a statement against the Arab world?&nbsp; Or a statement in support of Israel?&nbsp; I feel quite sure that the Israeli government would not have requested such an action of Trump.&nbsp; So Trump's motives seem strange in light of these facts.<br /><br />The location of international embassies in Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem goes back to the time of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.&nbsp; It is accepted and usual for countries to locate their&nbsp; embassy in the capital city of the host country.&nbsp; In Israel's case, foreign governments decided not to locate their embassies in Israel's chosen capital, Jerusalem, in order not to contravene the spirit of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine that was passed in November 1947.&nbsp; This resolution called for the city of Jerusalem to be a "corpus separatum", a separate body from the Jewish and Arab states that the resolution also called for the establishment of.&nbsp; History shows that the Jews accepted the resolution and went on to build the Jewish state as envisaged by the resolution, while the Arabs did not.&nbsp; Instead, they attacked the Jewish state in attempt to take it for themselves to control the entire area, a battle that rages until this day.&nbsp; In spite of all of this, the international community has been insistent to maintain the independent status of Jerusalem, and not show favour towards one part nor the other in their claims over the holy city.&nbsp; It is for this reason that Jerusalem has not be recognised as the capital city of Israel, for fear of stepping on Arab toes.&nbsp; This is the situation that has persisted until the current day.<br /><br />Israel would clearly wish for the embassies to be moved to Jerusalem, and for the international community to recognise the holy city as the capital of the Jewish state.&nbsp; So Trump's initiative is not entirely unwelcome.&nbsp; The real question is whether this is what Israel would wish to see Trump using his energy to do as a first gesture of his support for the Jewish state?&nbsp; I believe that there are currently larger and probably more important fish to fry, and that Trump's assistance could give would be more helpful in other areas.&nbsp; Examples of this include the issue of Iran, that remains a major thorn in Israel's side.&nbsp; It is not so much the direct threat that Iran presents to Israel, even though this is a huge issue, it is more about the massive funding that is being channelled by Iran to other terror groups.&nbsp; All of which are trying to destroy Israel in any way possible.&nbsp; The deal that was struck between Iran and the P5+1 countries has delivered economic benefits to Iran which have served to increase the flow of funds to these terror groups.&nbsp; It would be very desirable for Trump to somehow help to turn this clock back.&nbsp;&nbsp; Trump could also help to redress the imbalance that has existed in the international community against Israel for too long now.&nbsp; There is no doubt that Trump can also help to isolate terror groups that have been operating against Israel and against Jews.&nbsp; It is my view that some of these issues are more pressing than moving the embassy to Jerusalem. <br /><br />Trump's assistance to Israel, even if it is genuine and well-meant, will have its limits.&nbsp; He has many pressing US domestic issues to deal with, along with foreign policy issues affecting US allies and enemies alike. The amount of time and energy that he will have to devote to Israeli issues will be limited, and it would make sense for Prime Minister Netanyahu to prioritise the help that he needs from Trump very carefully in order to make it really count.&nbsp; I believe that the location of the embassy in Jerusalem is a lower priority issue.&nbsp; While I don't think that Netanyahu should forget this idea completely, it may be advisable to freeze it and put it on the back-burner for now.<br /><br />Netanyahu and Trump are diarised to meet on 15 February in Washington.&nbsp; Netanyahu will be drawing up his agenda very carefully to get the maximum benefit from this meeting.&nbsp; It is arguably more difficult for Netanyahu to fix his agenda for the meeting with Trump, than it was to arrange the agenda for meetings with less supportive presidents such as Obama.&nbsp; It is a little like a kid in a candy store trying to decide which he should leave behind.&nbsp; The choices are difficult.<br /><br />With the Trump presidency having started with such positive support for Israel, there is a great danger that Israeli expectations may be heightened to the point of ultimate disappointment.&nbsp; Only time will tell. Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-52425202641003576602016-12-25T11:00:00.000+02:002016-12-25T12:49:21.534+02:00Obama's Final Act of Betrayal<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/120203_obama_netanyahu2_reu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/120203_obama_netanyahu2_reu.jpg" height="173" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image courtesy of www.politico.com</i></td></tr></tbody></table>After weeks of speculation as to how the US will vote at the UN Security Council when presented with the resolution condemning Israel's policy regarding the so-called "settlements", we now have a clear and unequivocal answer.&nbsp; In the vote held on Friday, Barack Obama instructed his ambassador to the UN to abstain from the vote at the Security Council.&nbsp; This action allowed the motion to be carried, with 14 countries voting in favour and 1 country (the USA) abstaining.&nbsp; Had Obama decided to vote against the resolution, it would not have been carried despite the majority voting in favour.&nbsp; Because the USA has a veto right at the UN Security Council, it had the power to defeat the motion on its own.&nbsp; This veto right was not exercised on Friday.<br /><br />The decision by the USA delegation to abstain from Friday's vote flies in the face of USA policy at the UN Security Council in recent years on the subject of resolutions condemning Israel.&nbsp; In the words of outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Israel has been the victim of a disproportionate number of resolutions condemning her actions at the hands of various UN organisations.&nbsp; One could interpret this to mean that Israel has been unfairly targeted by the UN, and unjustifiably singled out for constant criticism and condemnation.&nbsp; The USA has somewhat redressed this imbalance by exercising its right of veto at the Security Council over the years, and has ensured that the unfair condemnations of Israel are not allowed to stand, at least in that forum.&nbsp; The most recent example of this was in 2011, when the Obama administration vetoed a resolution that condemned Israel's settlement activity.&nbsp; The resolution on that occasion was remarkably similar to the one passed by the Security Council on Friday by virtue of the US abstention.&nbsp; So what has changed in 5 short years, that justified the US turning its back on Israel at this time?<br /><br />In 2011, there was a great deal more at stake for President Obama.&nbsp; He had been in office for approximately 3 years, and was already eyeing his re-election with the hope of returning to the White House for 4 more years.&nbsp; His decision to veto the resolution on that occasion was all about serving his interest at that time, rather than showing what he genuinely felt and believed.&nbsp; Fast-forward 5 years, and Obama has no political capital to win or lose from the Security Council vote.&nbsp; He will vacate the Oval Office in less than a month, and this vote has no bearing on his future whatsoever.&nbsp; The only reason that he would vote in one direction or another, is to reflect his genuine view on the matter.&nbsp; This view is shown loudly and clearly in a resolution that is one-sided and false in its depiction of the reality.&nbsp; This is the legacy that Obama and Kerry are leaving on their peace-making efforts over the years, that were presented as being fair and even-handed.<br /><br />This act puts an entire 8 year presidency into context.&nbsp; There were many conspiracy theories about what Obama's true position on Israel was.&nbsp; Was he influenced by the fact that he comes from Muslim heritage?&nbsp; Was he genuinely sympathetic to Israel's struggle for survival?&nbsp; Did he understand that the obstacles to peace are numerous, and not only the fault of one party or the other?&nbsp; He tried to cloud the answers to these questions, and presented himself as a friend of Israel throughout his term in office.&nbsp; This single act at the end of his presidency, however, has clarified all that has gone before.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While Israel would never wish to oppose the possibility of reaching a genuine agreement with the Palestinians, it has always been important to Israel that any agreement be reached on the basis of mutual respect and recognition between the parties.&nbsp; This respect and recognition has been sorely missing from the Palestinian side.<br /><br />The only real purpose that this resolution serves, is to continue to perpetrate the view that Israel is solely to blame for the lack of progress towards peace.&nbsp; And Israel's policy on settlements is an easy scapegoat to use to illustrate why Israel should be blamed.&nbsp; If it was true that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace, why was peace not achieved in the period from 1948 to 1967, when there were no settlements to blame.&nbsp; Not only was peace not achieved, the Arabs were hell-bent on destroying Israel at any and every opportunity.&nbsp; But now, the settlements are being presented as the only reason for the lack of a peace agreement.&nbsp; Where is the criticism of the fact that the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, that has a right to live in peace and security?&nbsp; Or of the fact that the PLO charter continues to call for the destruction of the State of Israel?&nbsp; Or the continuous terror attacks that Israelis are forced to endure?&nbsp; These were conveniently ommitted from the UN Security Council resolution, and this emphasizes how one-sided how this resolution really is.<br /><br />If the resolution served to somehow move the peace process forward or to make a positive contribution the situation, I would be able to understand Obama's decision to allow it to stand on the record.&nbsp; Unfortunately, this is not the case.&nbsp; Instead, it is a pointless finger-pointing exercise that makes little contribution to the creation of a positive environment for peace-making.&nbsp; And now, it is clearer as to who is pointing at whom.&nbsp; Obama, your true colours have been revealed.&nbsp; Shame on you.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-10905579595773600802016-12-10T20:00:00.000+02:002016-12-10T20:00:03.222+02:00The Real Obstacle to Peace<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.nullifidian.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.nullifidian.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/01.jpg" height="193" width="320" /></a></div>If one believes all that is written in the international media about the current state of the Middle East conflict, it would be easy to reach the conclusion that there is only one obstacle to peace - Israel's policy on the so-called settlements.&nbsp; According to these accounts, if Israel agreed to uproot its citizens who are living in the disputed areas of Judea and Samaria,&nbsp; peace would magically break out in the Middle East.&nbsp; Nothing could be further from the truth.&nbsp; And the fact that outgoing US Secretary of State John Kerry (amongst others) constantly uses the line that the Israeli policy on settlements is the obstacle to peace, is a shameful inaccurate depiction of the situation.<br /><br />Before suggesting what I think the real obstacle to peace is, it is worth understanding the true legal standing of this disputed land.&nbsp; Until 1948, the land in Judea and Samaria was under a British mandate in terms of the San Remo conference of 1920.&nbsp; In 1947, the United Nations adopted a resolution to support the establishment of an Arab state and a Jewish state in the land under British mandate, then known as Palestine.&nbsp; The Arab world rejected this idea, chiefly because they objected to the establishment of a Jewish state.&nbsp; Ultimately, the Jewish state was established, and the Arab world declared war on it.&nbsp; In the aftermath of this war, the area of Judea and Samara came under the rulership of the Jordanian government.&nbsp; It remained like this for 19 years.&nbsp; During the course of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel captured this land and put it under Israeli military rule.&nbsp; This situation continued until 1982, when a semi-civil authority was appointed to oversee rulership of this area under the auspices of the Israeli ministry of defence.&nbsp; This is the situation until the present day.&nbsp; What is clear from history, is that Arabs were handed the opportunity to rule over this land on a golden platter in the UN partition plan for Palestine in 1947.&nbsp; It was rejected by them.&nbsp; Had it not been rejected, we would not still be arguing over ownership issues today.&nbsp; In addition, had the Arab world not plotted to try to wipe Israel off the map in 1967, the land would probably still be under Jordanian control.&nbsp; So now, that Israel has responded to protect the existence of the Israeli state, the complaints are too little, too late.<br /><br />There is no doubt in my mind that the Arab world is using all at its disposal to bring Israel's name into disrepute in the international community, and to take advantage of the easiest argument to convince others that Israel is the evil ogre in the story.&nbsp; This, it seems, is the argument of Israel's settlement policy which, according to the current rhetoric, is designed to scupper the prospects of peace ever being established in the region.&nbsp; Memories are, however, short.&nbsp; It is already long forgotten that it was the Arabs who rejected the opportunity of two states for two peoples in 1947, and it seems strange that questions are not being asked about why that was.<br /><br />In my view, the real obstacle to peace is the same one that existed in 1947 when the Arab world rejected the UN partition plan, and the same obstacle that existed for many years before that.&nbsp; The obstacle is the existence of the Jews, and now, the existence of the Jewish state.&nbsp; Until this "problem" is resolved, there will never be peace in the Middle East.&nbsp; And, judging by some of the things that are happening in Syria, there is unlikely to be peace in the Middle East even if the Arab world would succeed in removing Israel.&nbsp; All actions that are undertaken by the Arabs in the context of "peace" discussions, are done with the intention of weakening Israel's position to the point of destroying her.&nbsp; This is clearly evidenced by the response to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.&nbsp; Until that moment, Israel's rulership over Gaza was held up as an obstacle to peace.&nbsp; Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, the area has become less peaceful than it was before.&nbsp; Now it is being used as a springboard to launch further attacks into Israel.&nbsp; As far as progress towards peace is concerned, nothing was achieved by withdrawing from Gaza.&nbsp; So why should we believe that withdrawal from settlements in Judea and Samaria will be any different?&nbsp; The truth is that most Israelis do not believe this, even though the desire by Israelis to achieve peace remains as strong as ever.<br /><br />Over the years, Israel has made numerous unilateral gestures in an attempt to further the prospects for peace.&nbsp; Terrorists have been released from prison, money has been paid to the Palestinian Authority, borders have been opened and concessions granted, all in the interests of showing goodwill and positive intention to reach a peace agreement.&nbsp; In return, Israelis have been killed in terror attacks and Israel has had to fight numerous wars and protect her citizens from ongoing missile attacks.&nbsp; No meaningful progress has been made towards achieving a peace, or towards peaceful co-existence.&nbsp; It seems no wonder that the Israeli government is hesitant to make further concessions.&nbsp; They seem to achieve nothing other than further weakening Israel's ability to protect her right to peaceful existence.<br /><br />The time has come for the world to stop allowing the Arabs to hide behind the rhetoric that Israel's settlement policy is the obstacle to peace.&nbsp; More than that, the time has come for the international community to stop repeating and validating this ridiculous position.&nbsp; I feel sure that, if somebody could give a cast iron guarantee that reversing the settlement policy would allow peace to be reached, Israel would agree to it almost immediately.&nbsp; It is clear to all concerned, however, even to most of those repeating this line in the international community, that Israel's settlement policy is only being used as an excuse to justify why there is no peace.&nbsp; It is far from the obstacle that, if overcome, would allow peace to be achieved.<br /><br />The peace agenda contains numerous points that require resolution before a peace can be achieved.&nbsp; These include land borders, the rights of Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem, the arming of a future Palestinian state and many others.&nbsp; In my view,&nbsp; however, there is only one point that is of any real significance in this discussion, and this is the recognition by the Arab world of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.&nbsp; Until this is resolved, there is nothing further to talk about.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-70462551283885708122016-11-14T23:00:00.000+02:002016-11-14T23:00:00.482+02:00Does Israel Really Care That Trump Was Elected?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VfYz3mUQC0M/WCoaY7x8UcI/AAAAAAAAAJA/2etRdVxeFGYkkW3YDMAYB3IT_aqAxjEVwCLcB/s1600/Trump%2BpIc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VfYz3mUQC0M/WCoaY7x8UcI/AAAAAAAAAJA/2etRdVxeFGYkkW3YDMAYB3IT_aqAxjEVwCLcB/s320/Trump%2BpIc.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The US presidential election is thankfully finally over.&nbsp; The American people have spoken, and Donald Trump will be the next US president.&nbsp; Now it is time for the Democrats in the US to accept the result and the way in which US democracy works, and to get on with living the next four years as positively as possible.<br /><br />Many around the world have taken an interest in the election.&nbsp; Some people have been involved in this almost to the extent that they are involved in their own local elections.&nbsp; Such is the extent of the global influence exerted by the US and its leader.&nbsp; Israel has been no exception, with media continually carrying the latest US election stories and Israelis following the stories very closely.&nbsp; In Israel's case, it is understandable that individual Israelis have an interest in the outcome of the election.&nbsp; The US is Israel's most important international ally, which is helpful for a country that continues to fight an international battle against those who call for her destruction.&nbsp; There are many Israelis who believe that the views of the US president could be a great influence on&nbsp; the safety and the security of the State of Israel.&nbsp; But how much of a difference does it really make to Israel as to who is sitting in the Oval Office?&nbsp; Is it possible that Trump could be so much better for Israel's interests than Hillary would have been?&nbsp; Would Hillary really have been such a disaster for Israel's interests if she had been elected, as many Israelis believe?<br /><br />Because it is true that Republican presidents have historically been more understanding of Israel's security challenges over the years and have been more supportive of Israel's position, many Israelis assume that a Republican president will automatically be better for Israel than a president representing the Democrat party.&nbsp; There is certainly some justification to that point of view.&nbsp; But I am not convinced that one president can really be so much better for the interests of the State of Israel than another.&nbsp; While I feel that Trump may be a more understanding president for Israel, I am tempering my expectations about how the extent to which he will really be able to help Israel's cause.&nbsp; In the same way, I am not convinced that Hillary would have been so terrible for Israel, in the way that some of her detractors like to present.<br /><br />There is no doubt that Donald Trump made some remarks during his election campaign that were pleasing to the ears of many Israelis.&nbsp; His desire to move the US embassy to Jerusalem would finally bring some international recognition of Israel's rights to Jerusalem as her capital.&nbsp; His desire to build a wall along the US border with Mexico shows some understanding of Israel's construction of a safety wall in some parts of the country to reduce terrorist attacks.&nbsp; His comments about keeping tighter controls over Iran have come in contrast to US policy pursued to date, and stand out in criticism of Iran's antagonistic position towards Israel.&nbsp; But these, and other positive comments, were all simply electioneering rhetoric.&nbsp; I am sure that Trump understood that many Jews in the US were Hillary supporters, and he wanted to find a way to convince at least some of them to vote for him.&nbsp; US policy on Israel is a sure-fire way to get US Jews to think twice about who they wish to support in the election, and it is quite conceivable that Trump was using this lever to try to win support.&nbsp; It is not obvious that any of these desires will come to fruition during his term as president, despite the best will in the world.&nbsp; Making small things happen takes a huge effort, even if you are president of the US.&nbsp; There is a constant battle against interest groups and bureaucracy, and President Trump will have his work cut out to make things happen.&nbsp; We can expect that he will give up on pushing through legislation that he has no particular interest to pursue, especially if the headwinds are strong.&nbsp; I suspect that the move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem falls into this category.<br /><br />The Obama presidency is regarded by many Israelis to have been one of the toughest for Israel.&nbsp; President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu did not get along on a personal level, and this relationship characterised the period during which Obama was in office.&nbsp; The agreement with Iran, which worked against Israel's national interest, is surely a result of his personal lobbying.&nbsp; Despite this, many positive things were achieved for Israel during Obama's presidency.&nbsp; The only veto cast by the US at the UN Security Council during Obama's presidency was on a resolution condemning Israel.&nbsp; The US opposed attempts by the Palestinian Authority to gain membership of international organisations, even during the Obama presidency.&nbsp; The US supplied Israel with sorely-needed weapons during Operation Protective Edge, and the defence loan guarantee agreement, providing millions of dollars of military aid to Israel, was renewed.&nbsp; Despite Obama and his criticisms of Israel, Israel somehow succeeded in doing all that was required to protect her national security and to enjoy eight years of growth and relative prosperity.<br /><br />This all indicates that the presidency, and the relationship between the two countries, is larger than one individual.&nbsp; It all about national interests and priorities, and these do not change substantially when a new president takes office.&nbsp; Israel will continue to be the only democracy in the Middle East and, therefore, of major importance to the US's national interests in a highly volatile part of the world.&nbsp; And the US will continue to be a source of huge support to Israel's economic and defence needs.&nbsp; Sometimes the relationship will be slightly closer, and at other times less so.&nbsp; But it will always be important, at least for the foreseeable future.&nbsp; This is in spite of anybody who may be resident in the White House.&nbsp; What Israel really cares about is that the US continues to occupy its position of dominance in the international community.<br /><br />I am sure that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu will have a closer relationship than the one that existed between Obama and Netanyahu.&nbsp; This will be good news.&nbsp; I am sure that Israel will find an ear that is prepared to listen when talking to the Trump administration, so that is also good news.&nbsp; I am equally sure that Trump will not have a free hand to carry out all of his election promises, so expectations should be tempered.&nbsp; Overall, indications are good, but we should be cautious to judge things only by results.&nbsp; Predicting how things will be ahead of time is dangerous.&nbsp; <br /><br />If the Obama presidency was bad for Israel, and Israel survived it relatively unscathed, it is fair to assume that Israel can survive almost any president and situation.&nbsp; I think that Hillary would probably have been better than Obama for Israel, and it may be the case that Trump will be better than both of them.&nbsp; But Israel will survive and prosper irrespective of who rules the Oval Office.&nbsp; Israel is simply too important of an ally to the US for any US president to neglect the US relationship with Israel.<br /><br />It is my hope that Trump will live up to the expectations of those who believe that he will do well for the US and for Israel.&nbsp; And I hope that all his detractors will be pleasantly surprised as time goes by.&nbsp; Mainly, I hope that he will maintain the US's position on the global stage.&nbsp; We will only really be able to judge this in four years time.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-30803868221298757592016-10-25T08:00:00.000+03:002016-10-25T08:04:26.767+03:00The UNESCO Fiasco That Could Help Israel's Cause<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ubraintv.com/upload/videos_all/thumbnails/4161Irina_Bokova_SAB.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.ubraintv.com/upload/videos_all/thumbnails/4161Irina_Bokova_SAB.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) decided last week to pass a <a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246215e.pdf" target="_blank">vote</a> on the issue of the Old City of Jerusalem, and the Western Wall and Al Aqsa Mosque in particular.&nbsp; This was not the first time that such a vote has been passed by UNESCO, and it is unlikely to be the last.&nbsp; If it was not for the fact that the vote was passed by an organisation that has such broad international representation, and a remit that has an important role in the preservation and advancement of education, science and culture around the world, it would be laughable and difficult to take seriously.<br /><br />The resolution runs into five pages of condemnations, disapprovals, regrets and deprecations about how Israel (referred to repeatedly in the document as the "occupying power") has violated the "historic status quo" under which the Waqf (referred to in the document as the Awqaf) governs the holy sites.&nbsp; Israel is accused of using aggression and illegal measures against the Waqf and its personnel, civilians and religious figures, and of using force against and damaging the Al Aqsa Mosque, restricting access to the Temple Mount (not the words of the resolution) via the Mughrabi Gate and preventing the reconstruction of the Al Rahma Gate building.&nbsp; And, for good measure, there are some condemnations thrown in about military confrontations in and around Gaza and excavations at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem.&nbsp; The resolution fails to make mention of any Jewish connection to Jerusalem, the Old City and the Temple Mount that is is the holiest site in Judaism.&nbsp; Instead, it is mentioned purely in Islamic terms.&nbsp; None of this comes as any surprise to anybody who has been following the votes by UN organisations over the past decade.&nbsp; They have objectively been very biased against Israel at every level, including the General Assembly, Security Council and other related UN bodies.&nbsp; Many words of condemnation of this UNESCO resolution have been written, and the Jewish people around the world have demonstrated their disapproval in many different ways.&nbsp; The thousands who turned up the Western Wall for the Priestly Blessing during the festival of Succot was a sure sign of defiance against the resolution.<br /><br />In a strange sort of way, I sense that reaction to this resolution may end up helping Israel's cause in the international community, and at UN-related bodies in particular.&nbsp; Despite the outrage of this vote being passed by 24 votes to 6, with a massive 26 countries abstaining, there are a few positives to be taken from the vote.&nbsp; While these positive points change nothing about this vote, they do send a message that things could be different in the future.&nbsp; There are indications that this is the vote that may have broken the camel's back.<br /><br />Even before the result of the vote was announced,&nbsp; UNESCO's director-general Irina Bokova was forced to make a statement about how she believes that denying Judaism's connection to Jerusalem (along with the two other monotheistic faiths) harms UNESCO.&nbsp; The head of UNESCO's executive board, Michael Worbs, said that he hoped that the resolution would not go to a vote.&nbsp; Clearly, the executive team of UNESCO was embarrassed by the vote of the members of the organisation, and was happy to show this embarrassment in public.&nbsp; Even the Secretary-General of the UN, who has not necessarily been a great friend to Israel or the Jews during his term, felt the need to speak out against the resolution.&nbsp; This is a first.&nbsp; But the positive signs run even deeper than that.<br /><br />At a previous similar vote in April 2016, the number of countries that voted in favour of the anti-Israel resolution was 33.&nbsp; Over the course of about 6 months, there were 9 fewer votes in support of a resolution that was substantively the same as the previous one.&nbsp; This represents progress for Israel, albeit not quite a victory.&nbsp; The Mexican government decided to fire its ambassador after he refused to obey their orders to support the resolution.&nbsp; Despite this debacle, the Mexican government stood up after the vote to withdraw its support for the resolution.&nbsp; The ambassador remained fired, but the u-turn was highly unexpected.<br /><br />Brazil, which supported the original vote and then spoke out saying that support of the vote was a mistake, chose to support the second vote as well.&nbsp; They then spoke out again saying that a future similar vote would not be supported by Brazil.&nbsp; Brazil's actions, and contrary statements are impossible to understand.&nbsp; It is unclear why the Brazilian government considered that, if the resolution is not worthy of support in the future, it should be worthy of support now.&nbsp; Brazil's ambivalence, however, is noted with some satisfaction.&nbsp; There are many theories circulating about why governments like Brazil would choose to support this resolution.&nbsp; Especially those governments who seemingly do not have an entrenched interest in this matter.&nbsp; Was money changing hands behind the scenes?&nbsp; Were political favours being traded?&nbsp; Are the pro-Palestinian voting trends so entrenched in the international community, that breaking them is almost impossible?&nbsp; We will probably never know the answer to this question, although speculation is rife.&nbsp; The thing that has become clear, is that even those countries who supported the vote feel some need to show regret in an attempt to make their public position a little more acceptable.<br /><br />The resolution in its current wording, not only ignores the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, it ignores the Christian connection too.&nbsp; The Christian countries which voted in favour of the resolution were effectively supporting this world view as well.&nbsp; It is inconceivable that Christian countries would promote exclusive Muslim rights to the this holy city and its holy sites.&nbsp; Perhaps their eagerness to condemn Israel caused them to lose sight of this?&nbsp; It is no coincidence that it has only been under Israeli rule over Jerusalem that all three monotheistic religions have been allowed free access to their holy sites.&nbsp; History has shown that Arab or Muslim rule over Jerusalem is tantamount to denying the rights of other religions to their holy sites.&nbsp; How ironic it is that UNESCO has chosen to castigate Israel for its rule over Jerusalem, when this is the one period in Jerusalem's history that has ensured free access to all who come in peace and security to worship.<br /><br />We can take some comfort from the fact that fewer countries supported the most recent resolution than the one before.&nbsp; And also from the fact that some of the thinking personalities in leadership positions spoke out against the senselessness of the rhetoric.&nbsp; I sense that the tide of opinion against Israel could be turning.&nbsp; Whereas supporting anti-Israeli resolutions has always seemed easy to do by many in the international community, irrespective of how ridiculous the text was, it appears as though people are now thinking a little more before giving blind support against Israel.&nbsp; That is an optimistic sign.&nbsp; The battle is, however, far from won, and many more similar resolutions are expected in the future.&nbsp; Perhaps members of the international community will see more and more what the truth of the anti-Israel campaign is truly about.<br /><br />Israel could be standing on the threshhold of a new period in international politics and diplomacy.&nbsp; A new secretary-general is due to take over leadership at the UN in 2017 that could signal a change in some attitudes.&nbsp; If organisations like UNESCO are going to insist upon passing ridiculous resolutions like the one discussed above, it may also assist in bring the attention of the international community to the single-minded bias against Israel that exists in UN organisations.&nbsp; The next organisation on the list would be the UNHRC, which has the dubious distinction of isolating Israel as the only country forced to appear as an item on the agenda of all its meetings to explain its actions.<br /><br />Dreaming costs nothing.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-39704935956264289782016-10-05T08:30:00.000+03:002016-10-05T08:30:23.859+03:00Obama's Insult<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: right;"></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://next-geebee.ft.com/image/v1/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F1ce16032-8705-11e6-a75a-0c4dce033ade?source=next&amp;fit=scale-down&amp;width=700" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://next-geebee.ft.com/image/v1/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F1ce16032-8705-11e6-a75a-0c4dce033ade?source=next&amp;fit=scale-down&amp;width=700" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image courtesy Financial Times https://www.ft.com</i></td></tr></tbody></table>US President Barack Obama was in attendance on Friday at the funeral of former Israeli president and prime minister Shimon Peres, and was invited to eulogise the last of Israel's founding fathers.&nbsp; Obama's attendance and eulogy was evidence, if any was needed, of Peres's standing in the international community and the circles in which Peres has moved during more than six decades of international diplomacy.&nbsp; In spite of Peres's persona as an international statesman, his funeral was an intensely personal event for Israel and for members of the Peres family.&nbsp; This fact seems to have been lost on President Obama judging by the text of his eulogy.<br /><br />It almost felt as though Obama was trying using his attendance at the funeral to compete with the last US president who attended the funeral of an Israeli statesman just over 20 years ago.&nbsp; On that occasion, President Bill Clinton created the simple but iconic phrase, "shalom chaver"(goodbye friend), when eulogising late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.&nbsp; Obama's own attempt at creating an icon of a Hebrew phrase was not simple enough, and fell flat.&nbsp; Obama's phrase, "toda raba chaver yakar" (thank you dear friend) seemed to be too much of a take on Clinton's original phrase, and seemed much less sincere than the words uttered by Clinton two decades ago.&nbsp; Even Bill Clinton's own eulogy on Friday of Shimon Peres seemed more sincerely spoken than that of Obama.<br /><br />Obama had lost his way in his speech, and in the hearts of Israelis, long before the "toda raba chaver yakar" was uttered.&nbsp; In fact, he had already succeeded in putting a foot wrong in his remarks of welcome, long before reaching the main part of his speech.&nbsp; As one would expect at such an occasion, President Obama acknowledged members of the Peres family in mourning, Israeli leaders and representatives and other world leaders in attendance at the funeral.&nbsp; This is where things started to go wrong.&nbsp; Out of all the foreign leaders, who attended the funeral, President Obama chose to mention only one by name in acknowledging his presence.&nbsp; That was the name of Palestinian Authority President Abbas whose presence, he said, "was a sign of unfinished business"!<br /><br />That one comment infuriated me, and many of my fellow Israelis.&nbsp; Is this what Obama's attendance at the funeral was all about?&nbsp; To promote his political agenda and highlight his political failings, at the state funeral of one of Israel's founding fathers?&nbsp; And what did Obama hope to achieve by making this comment?&nbsp; His ability to achieve anything in Middle East peace-making is long past, as he enters the "lame duck" period of his presidency.&nbsp; So what positive could have come from this comment?&nbsp; To me, his comments indicated a lack of respect to those whose hospitality he was enjoying.<br /><br />Out of all the elected leaders who had accepted the invitation of the Peres family and the Israeli government to attend the funeral, why did Obama choose to single out the one leader who does not enjoy a democratic mandate from his people to rule?&nbsp; And did he not understand that this was also the leader who has supported waves of terrorist attacks that have been undertaken against Israel and Israelis over the past few months and years?&nbsp; Even though Abbas may not have personally ordered these terror attacks to take place in the way that his predecessor did, he has provided Palestinian Authority money to the families of terrorists who were killed during the course of their murderous activities.&nbsp; And he has sent out messages of sympathy and made condolence visits to the families of these evil murderers.&nbsp; In doing so, Abbas has made clear to his people that such activities are acceptable and desirable.&nbsp; This, in turn, creates a new generation of terrorists.&nbsp; So for him to be standing on the hallowed ground of Jerusalem's Mount Herzl at the funeral was already a huge concession in the view of many Israelis, perhaps an unjustified and undesirable concession.&nbsp; But Obama succeeded in rubbing salt into the wounds by choosing to give credibility and international standing to a man who is most unworthy of this.<br /><br />What was the unfinished business that Obama was referring to?&nbsp; He would say that it is the unfinished business of making peace between Israelis and Palestinians.&nbsp; But the Palestinians show little desire to finish this, and have taken no active and meaningful steps in this direction.&nbsp; In Israel's view, the unfinished business is that of removing the objective to destroy Jews and the Jewish homeland from the charter of the PLO, and to openly and unequivocally recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.&nbsp; Until that unfinished business is taken care of, and the support for terrorists is ended, there will be no further business.<br /><br />There is no doubt that Obama was conscious that his comments would be controversial.&nbsp; He is well aware of the position that Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken on the issue of the peace talks, and the stand taken by the Palestinians.&nbsp; These remarks were made with full knowledge that they would cause a reaction, and that they would not be welcome.&nbsp; This represents an insult to his hosts, and was inappropriate and uncalled for.<br /><br />The actions by the US president seem consistent with his behaviour towards Israel over the last few years.&nbsp; During the time of Obama's presidency, the Palestinian Authority has had its status at the United Nations upgraded, been accepted as a party to the International Criminal Court in The Hague and taken on a much higher standing in the international community.&nbsp; All of this comes despite continuing to fund and encourage terror, and not being willing to recognise the democratic right of the State of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.&nbsp; Instead of holding the Palestinians responsible for acts of terror and being prepared to criticise this publicly, the US president has continuously castigated Israel for constructing homes in Israeli-ruled territory.<br /><br />Prime Minister Netanyahu acquiesced to the request by the Peres family to invite Mahmoud Abbas to the funeral, and to seat him in the front row.&nbsp; His hands were tied in terms of agreeing to grant Abbas permission to enter Jerusalem for the funeral, even though he may have wished to act otherwise.&nbsp; Obama should have considered this enough, instead of making a more public spectacle of an already uncomfortable situation.&nbsp; Sometimes less is more, although Obama seemed insensitive to this during his eulogy.<br /><br />It is somewhat ironic that Abbas's presence at the funeral was also castigated by his own electorate, many of whom considered Peres an enemy of the Palestinian cause.&nbsp; With so many Palestinians and Israelis joining together in the dislike of Abbas's presence at the funeral, perhaps this should have been a clear enough message to Obama that raising this in public would serve to damage his objectives rather than progress them.&nbsp; Perhaps this is a clear indication why American peace-making efforts, particularly those driven by Obama, have been so unsuccessful.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-35962414923489746892016-09-30T00:30:00.000+03:002016-09-30T00:30:02.013+03:00Open Letter to Maria<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9o03vd14bWU/V-2C-u_B2LI/AAAAAAAAAIs/k9M84KhcQrcSiLvmauZmPHa6jJ5CN6KGwCEw/s1600/maria.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9o03vd14bWU/V-2C-u_B2LI/AAAAAAAAAIs/k9M84KhcQrcSiLvmauZmPHa6jJ5CN6KGwCEw/s320/maria.jpeg" width="216" /></a></div>Dear Maria,<br /><br />I have read what you wrote to Amnon when he sought to be your guest via airbnb.&nbsp; I think that you have really lost a great opportunity to expand your knowledge and understanding of the issues that currently exist between Israel and the Palestinians.&nbsp; I am sure that hosting Amnon would have been an eye-opener for you.&nbsp; I wish to take the liberty to explain here what Amnon may have told you if you had been open-minded enough to have him as your guest.<br /><br />Having followed the activities of the BDS movement over a number of years, I wonder whether the movement’s supporters like yourself really understand what BDS is about.&nbsp; People like you appear to support BDS in the belief that isolating Israel will promote a peaceful solution between Israel and the Palestinians.&nbsp; Even though your objective is honourable, you are bound to be disappointed by the achievements of BDS.&nbsp; The BDS movement and its activities are first and foremost directed towards hurting and destroying Israel.&nbsp; The BDS idea was originally to protest Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) by exposing and boycotting Israeli products produced in these areas.&nbsp; Instead, the organisation has been hijacked by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic individuals, who try to convince people like you that BDS is an honourable cause that promotes peace.&nbsp; And this can be achieved by behaving in an anti-Semitic way, just like you did on airbnb.&nbsp; But all that they are really doing is trying to promote anti-Semitism and hate towards Israel in a politically acceptable manner.<br /><br />If you are prepared to examine the issue in greater depth, you will discover that the main obstacle to peace is the unwillingness of the Palestinians to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.&nbsp; This is demonstrated by their refusal to remove from their charter, the objective to destroy the Jewish state. So, if BDS was really an organisation that promoted the idea of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it would protest against the Palestinians’ stated objective, and against their continued attempts to destroy Jews and the Jewish state.<br /><br />If you are looking for activists working towards a peaceful solution, you will find that the majority of Jews in Israel are activists working towards a peaceful solution.&nbsp; There are few Israelis who do not yearn for a more peaceful environment to raise their children, and to find a peaceful way to co-exist with our neighbours.&nbsp; Don’t forget that Israelis are happy to welcome Arabs, even so-called Palestinian Arabs, into their towns and cities to sit alongside them in coffee shops and restaurants.&nbsp; As long as they come in peace.&nbsp; You will find Arabs in every Israeli town and city, in malls up and down the country and working in Israeli businesses.&nbsp; The same cannot be said for finding Jews in the Palestinian Authority area.&nbsp; Their areas are “Judenfrei”.&nbsp; And it is this type of behaviour that the international community and BDS reward by criticising and castigating Israel at every opportunity.&nbsp; If you are indeed ready to make an exception for activists working for a peaceful solution, Amnon is probably the person that you should make your exception for.&nbsp; Or any other Israeli who wishes to be your guest.&nbsp; We all dream about peace, and are prepared to give a great deal to achieve it.<br /><br />Don’t forget, however, that Israelis are not prepared to seek out peace at any price.&nbsp; They are not prepared to do it in a way that ultimately ends up destroying the Jewish state.&nbsp; After all, this is hardly peace.&nbsp; If the Palestinians were prepared to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, they will find willing partners in Israelis to shake their hands and to find ways to co-exist in peace.&nbsp; If not, Israelis are unafraid to fight for their rights and for their survival.&nbsp; We are a tough bunch of people who never give up.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that BDS has managed to convince people like you that it is fighting for peace, and to cause you to become anti-Semitic in your actions.&nbsp; The people who are really fighting for peace are not the Palestinians, and not the BDS activists.&nbsp; They are the Israelis.&nbsp; If you give them a chance to prove it, you will never be disappointed.&nbsp; I am sure that you will have the chance to discover this first-hand if you host Amnon as your guest.&nbsp; And even though you may have been influenced by BDS and by the media in your thoughts and actions, you do need to take some responsibility for the way in which you have treated Amnon.&nbsp; It is anti-Semitic, bigoted and unacceptable.<br /><br />Regards<br />AnthonyAnthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-74311695573608852072016-08-31T08:00:00.000+03:002016-09-04T22:01:08.762+03:00The Unfortunate Olympic LegacyThe Israeli Olympic team has returned from Rio with two bronze medals, both for judo.&nbsp; This almost equals Israel's best medal haul in any Olympic Games to date.&nbsp; Twice before Israel has earned two medals although, on the previous occasions, one medal was either a silver or gold.&nbsp; Unfortunately, however, the most talked-about story in Israel relating to the games has nothing to do with the medals that were brought home.&nbsp; Instead, the legacy of the Rio Olympics in Israel will always be the handshake that never was.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0Exr0SfulHg/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0Exr0SfulHg?feature=player_embedded" style="clear: right; float: right;" width="320"></iframe>This of course relates to the judo bout between Israel's Ori Sasson and Egyptian judoka Islam El Shehaby.&nbsp; The incident began long before the bout when, we are advised, El Shehaby indicated that he was not willing to fight an Israeli opponent.&nbsp; He had been encouraged by fans on social media not to fight the Israeli in this bout.&nbsp; Some reports suggest that the Egyptian authorities forced El Shehaby to partake in the bout, against his will.&nbsp; This all seems somewhat strange for an athlete at the peak of his career.&nbsp; It is assumed that the opportuntity to participate in, and excel at the Olympic Games is almost unrivaled as an ambition of any athlete.&nbsp; The story published in some media says that El Shehaby decided to&nbsp; retaliate against being forced to participate, and this came in the form of a refusal to shake hands with Ori at the end of the match.&nbsp; Sasson had been warned of this situation beforehand, but still approached his vanquished opponent at the end of the fight for a handshake that was rejected by the Egyptian.<br /><br />The International Olympic Committee (IOC) intervened and&nbsp; found that the Egyptian athlete had acted contrary to the <span id="article-text">rules of fair play and against the spirit of friendship embodied in the Olympic Values.&nbsp; They issued the athlete with a reprimand.&nbsp; The Egyptian Olympic Committee punished the athlete by sending him home from the games.&nbsp; This incident followed the "scolding" issued to the head of the Lebanese Olympic delegation in Rio, after he refused to allow the Israeli team onto their bus that they were due to have shared on the way to the opening ceremony.&nbsp; And also came after the incident involving the Saudi Arabian judoka who withdrew from a bout, when it became clear that the winner of her bout would have to fight against an Israeli in the next round.</span><br /><span id="article-text"><br /></span><span id="article-text">Even though these incidents, particularly the rejection of Ori Sasson's handshake, made news around the world especially on social media, none of them come as a huge surprise to Israelis.&nbsp; Despite the ideals of the Olympic Movement to promote peace and cooperation between peoples around the world, Israelis have always known that these ideals do not necessarily extend in equal measure to them.&nbsp; The terror attack at the Munich Olympic Games, in 1972 in which 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team and a German police officer were killed, is clear evidence of that.&nbsp; It is not so much about the terror attack itself - it is well known that terror groups around the world will use every possible way of getting to Israelis to sow fear amongst them.&nbsp; It is rather about the response by the IOC to this incident.&nbsp; It is inconceivable that it took until 2016 for the IOC to finally agree to officially honour the slain members of the Israeli Olympic team at a games in any way.&nbsp; Why would it take 44 years to do this?&nbsp; Who would have opposed the request made many years ago by the Israeli delegation to officially honour those who were killed?&nbsp; And why?</span><br /><span id="article-text"><br /></span><span id="article-text">It is notable that the most prominent anti-Israel incident at the Rio Games, the incident with El Shehaby, came from an athlete representing a country with whom Israel does have diplomatic relations.&nbsp; Despite the concept and tradition of the "Olympic Truce" which calls for athletes to be allowed right of safe travel to and from the Games, Israel will expect representatives of countries like Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, with whom there are no diplomatic relations, not to agree to travel on the bus with her athletes.&nbsp; This is clearly in direct contravention of the Olympic ideals.&nbsp; But it is more surprising when the greatest protest comes from a so-called friendly country.&nbsp; While it is noted that the country's Olympic Committee and other official bodies came out against the actions of the individual athlete, it seems as though El Shehaby received a huge amount of unofficial support for his actions from fellow Egyptians.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span id="article-text">Israel and Egypt signed their peace treaty 37 years ago.&nbsp; More than a generation has elapsed since then, and yet their athletes still refuse to shake hands with Israel's athletes at the Olympic Games.&nbsp; It is true that the peace has not been a truly warm peace, and there have been awkward times when the peace agreement looked like it was in grave danger.&nbsp; It is nevertheless a peace treaty between countries that are neighbours, and comes with full diplomatic relations.&nbsp; Was this refusal from an athlete who was born after the peace treaty was signed, a product of the education that he received?&nbsp; I cannot imagine one Israeli athlete who would refuse to shake the hand of any opponent, no matter which country they come from.&nbsp; Even from those countries that are insistent on wanting to destroy Israel.</span><br /><span id="article-text"><br /></span><span id="article-text">It is ironic that the Israeli athletes travelling to the opening ceremony were willing to travel with the Lebanese delegation in the way that the organisers had intended.&nbsp; After all, Lebanon is a country that has been at constant war with Israel for the past 68 years, and has tried to destroy Israel on numerous occasions.&nbsp; It is even more ironic that the Israeli team had to refuse to be split up and reallocated onto a number of other buses due to security concerns associated with&nbsp; the team being split up.&nbsp; With the ramifications of Munich still resonating in their ears, the Israeli team was ordered by their security team to remain together until the organisers laid on an alternative bus in which the entire team could travel together along with their required security escort.&nbsp; Perhaps the greatest irony of all, is the fact that the security of the entire Olympic Games in Rio was left to a group of 36 Israeli companies to take care of.</span><br /><span id="article-text"><br /></span><span id="article-text">With anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment rife around the world, Israeli athletes went to the Olympic Games in Rio to find a relative safe haven from the turmoil.&nbsp; If everybody adhered to the ideals of the Olympic Movement, this is what they would have found in Rio.&nbsp; But this was not the case at all.&nbsp; They found in Rio the same anti-Semitic behaviour that has become openly acceptable in football stadiums in Europe, and in the General Assembly of the United Nations.&nbsp; And this from&nbsp; countries with whom Israel has diplomatic relations.&nbsp; This puts the achievement of our athletes in earning two bronze medals into the proper context.&nbsp; Kol hakavod!</span><br /><br />Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-24140383702532459792016-08-17T00:11:00.002+03:002016-08-17T00:11:56.540+03:00The Historical Entitlement Argument Does Not Work<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PIkffoLzrro/V7OAM-XqHxI/AAAAAAAAAIY/c-tLjAQ_XEA_HG6-p0RTx5VJGpGDfxnfwCLcB/s1600/ISRAEL%2B-%2Bmap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PIkffoLzrro/V7OAM-XqHxI/AAAAAAAAAIY/c-tLjAQ_XEA_HG6-p0RTx5VJGpGDfxnfwCLcB/s400/ISRAEL%2B-%2Bmap.jpg" title="Image from http://worldcometomyhome.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/0315-israel-map-of-holy-land.html" width="281" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from worldcometomyhome.blogspot.co.il</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>The link between the Jews and the land of Israel is undeniable.&nbsp; The extent to which Jewish history has played itself out in this land makes it inconceivable that a Jewish state could exist anywhere else in the world.&nbsp; We feel this link every day as we pray to be in Zion and the rebuilt city of Jerusalem, and we experience it every week in our readings of the Torah that mention places that still carry the same names to this very day.&nbsp; The festivals that we celebrate are frequently associated with particular places in this land, and the graves of our revered forefathers and mothers are within our borders.&nbsp; Perhaps, most of all, the site of the holy Temple, destroyed almost 2,000 years ago in the city of Jerusalem, remains the holiest site in our religion and culture.&nbsp; Despite offers to create a Jewish homeland in other parts of the world, Jews through the generations could never have accepted a&nbsp; Jewish state anywhere other than in the land of Israel.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>In spite of this, the international community continues to question the rights that Jews have to be in the land of Israel, and to have their own homeland there.&nbsp; This forces Israelis into defending why they have the right to state in the land of Israel.&nbsp; The main argument that Jews use to justify their right to be there, is on the basis of historical links and entitlement.&nbsp; Typical justifications include the fact that it is written in the Old Testament about the borders of the Jewish state, or that there has been more then 2,000 years of continuous Jewish presence in the land.&nbsp; This is true despite numerous attempts over the years to expel the Jews from the land of Israel.&nbsp; It is my view, however, that the ongoing attempts to prove rights to the land by Jews via these avenues, serve to weaken the claim rather than to strengthen it.&nbsp; Even the act of trying to justify the rights at all represents a weakness in my eyes.<br /><br />Israel is the only member of the UN whose right to exist is continuously questioned, and whose future existence is openly threatened.&nbsp; Other members of the UN have no qualms in calling for Israel's destruction, knowing full well that this comes without any consequences.&nbsp; Without the support of the members of the international community who should speak up against such atrocious threats and behaviour, Israel is drawn into the vacuum and feels the need to defend herself.&nbsp; While this is a natural response to such vile threats, the act of going on the defensive only goads the bullies into increasing their attacks.&nbsp; This creates a vicious circle which has no end to it.<br /><br />Under UN partition plan in 1947, independent Arab and Jewish states were approved to be established in the former British mandate of Palestine. &nbsp; This was confirmed by a two-thirds majority of states present and voting at the UN General Assembly.&nbsp; Despite the fact that 13 countries voted against the plan and a further 10 countries abstained, the will of the 33 countries who voted in favour of the resolution was implemented.&nbsp; This concluded any questions about who would have the right to live in the land, and to set up their state there.&nbsp; The fact that the Arabs rejected the plan and refused to establish their state as envisaged does not detract from their right to do so, nor from the right of the Jews to do the same.&nbsp; This was clearly laid down in resolution 181(II) and passed on 29 November 1947.<br /><br />The justification for a Jewish state in the land of Israel is embodied solely in the UN resolution that presented this right.&nbsp; Since the moment that the resolution was passed, the arguments surrounding historical entitlement or continuous presence (or anything else) were effectively set aside and became less significant as points in order to prove entitlement.&nbsp; Perhaps these matters were considered in the extensive work and report issued by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP).&nbsp; Now that the recommendations of the committee have been accepted, the partition plan approved and the State of Israel established, there is no room to question this any further.&nbsp; And it is certainly not acceptable to call for the destruction of the State of Israel, a country that was set up by a UN mandate with a two-thirds majority.<br /><br />By continuing to put forward the argument of historical links and rights to the land, Israelis effectively give detractors justification to ignore the importance of the UN vote.&nbsp; This negates the vote, and its legal significance.&nbsp; It also gives&nbsp; people the opportunity to open all types of debates to negate the historical rights arguments.&nbsp; Not everybody believes what is written in the Bible, and it is almost impossible to conivince them otherwise.&nbsp; Similarly, the debate whether or not Jews have really had a continuous presence in the land of Israel.&nbsp; Facts of history are frequently difficult to prove unequivocally.&nbsp; This is an argument that can never really be proved or won, in one direction or the other.&nbsp; It is futile, and shows only that Israelis are happy to reopen this debate that cannot really prove anything in either direction.<br /><br />The time has come to stop using arguments to justify Jewish presence in the land of Israel, that simply serve to weaken its right.&nbsp; This is not to say that the historical link is unimportant to the Jewish soul.&nbsp; On the contrary, this is what drove the Jews to fight so hard for their homeland in this place over so many years.&nbsp; Now that this homeland is a reality, these arguments are no longer useful as political arguments, and are mostly unhelpful.&nbsp; Instead, the vote by the international community that legitimised the Jewish homeland in Israel is the one and only relevant argument.&nbsp; And, while it is true that the map of Israel today is not quite the map that was approved by the UN in 1947, it is equally true to note that the Arab state that was approved in that same UN vote was never accepted.&nbsp; Instead, the land that was earmarked for the Arab state has simply been used as a springboard to try to destroy the Jewish state.<br /><br />The Jewish state could never be anywhere else, other than in the historical Jewish homeland.&nbsp; Now that this has been accepted by the UN and the international community in a legally binding vote, the argument about historical entitlement should be ceased.&nbsp; It is simply no longer relevant as a political and legal argument, and not helpful to Israel's cause. Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-14778627682656337372016-07-30T21:30:00.000+03:002016-08-01T07:41:56.142+03:00The Legacy of Entebbe Lives On<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://nhlife.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/entebbe12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://nhlife.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/entebbe12.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Forty years have passed since the rescue of Jewish hostages was carried out by IDF soldiers at Uganda's Entebbe airport.&nbsp; A number of events were held recently to mark the occasion, and to remember all that happened in the hijacking of the Air France plane, the separation of the Jewish hostages from the others and the ultimate rescue of the hostages in an astonishing operation by IDF troops.&nbsp; With a heavy heart, the victims of this hijacking and rescue operation were also remembered and commemorated.&nbsp; In total, 4 of the hostages were killed as well as the IDF commander of the operation, Lt. Col. Yonni Netanyahu.&nbsp; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose this opportunity to visit Entebbe for the first time, to personally witness the place where his older brother was killed.<br /><br />Operation Thunderbolt&nbsp; was renamed Operation Yonatan to commemorate its fallen commander.&nbsp; With the luxury of hindsight to look back on this operation, the legacy that Operation Yonatan has left for Israel and its security establishment can be assessed.&nbsp; This rescue mission was undoubtedly one of the most daring and audacious missions of its type during its day, and even since then.&nbsp; It has been the subject of numerous books, movies and military case studies, such has been the level of interest into the operation.&nbsp; Besides the audacity and sheer <i>chutzpa</i> involved in pulling off this operation, the tiny details that were taken into consideration and the very short period of time within which all the preparations were made, have served to elevate the mission to legendary status.<br /><br />The ramifications of this operation in Israel, and in the Jewish world in general, have been profound.&nbsp; The operation has elevated Israel's secret service, the Mossad, to be afforded greater respect and recognition by lay people and peers in a way that other secret service organisations do not enjoy.&nbsp; Because much of the work undertaken by secret service organisations, particularly the Mossad, is secret by its nature and is seldom made public, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness and the successes of the organisation.&nbsp; Operation Yonatan was a visible sign of success, not only for the IDF, but indeed for the Israeli secret service.&nbsp; It was, after all, the Mossad who were responsible for much of the intelligence-gathering, and who were integrally involved in every step of the operation.&nbsp; It was one of the few visible successes that the Mossad would be happy to be publicly associated with, and which served to demonstrate its amazing capabilities.&nbsp; This operation (along with a few others), has given the Mossad the status of a legend in the secret service world.&nbsp; Israel's enemies know that they should be on their guard to expect the unexpected.&nbsp; They have learned from this that very little is beyond the Mossad's capabilities.&nbsp; Not only does the Mossad have the ability to carry out these types of operations, it also has the audacity and fearlessness to do so.&nbsp; That legend continues to the current day.&nbsp; Frequently, when crazy and improbable "accidents" occur that impair the work being done by Israel's enemies, the Mossad is the first organisation suspected of involvement.&nbsp; Despite the automatic suspicion of the Mossad and the close monitoring of its operations, it is extremely seldom that hard evidence can be brought to confirm involvement of Mossad agents in an operation.&nbsp; Rather than causing the Mossad to operate with impunity or carelessness, it gives the Mossad the impetus to carry out more and greater operations in the protection of the State of Israel and Jews around the world.<br /><br />The fact that Operation Yonatan rescued both Israeli and non-Israeli Jews has also left its mark.&nbsp; There is no other country around the world, whose secret service operates to protect the citizens of countries that are not its own.&nbsp; And yet, this is the hallmark of the Mossad, as borne out by Operation Yonatan, when it comes to the protection of Jews who are not citizens of Israel.&nbsp; The reason that the hostages were separated in Entebbe as they were, had nothing to do with them being citizens of Israel.&nbsp; Instead, they were separated on the basis of whether they were Jewish or not.&nbsp; Exactly as was the case during the <i>Shoah</i>.&nbsp; Clearly, the Israelis were automatically included in the group of Jews, but they were not alone.&nbsp; When Operation Yonatan was carried out, it was carried out in the name of all the Jews in the group, whether they were Israeli or not.&nbsp; This was further evidence from the government of Israel, and from the instruments of the government, that the country stands ready to help Jews from all corners of the earth.&nbsp; This was cemented into law when the Law of Return was enacted to allow Jews to claim immediate citizenship of the State of Israel, and has been demonstrated in numerous rescue missions of Jews when they were considered to be in danger.&nbsp; Operation Yonatan was another significant sign of this commitment.<br /><br />Little has changed over the past 40 years in terms of the threat that confronts Jews, no matter where they happen to be in the world.&nbsp; We have seen Jews establish a level of comfort in their host countries, only to come under threat again.&nbsp; The latest wave of violence in Europe, and in France in particular, has certainly been directed against Jews.&nbsp; It is with pride and confidence that the State of Israel reaches out to these Jews to offer them protection in their homes, but also to offer them a home with greater protection.&nbsp; And we have seen these Jews take up on this in their droves.&nbsp; This is, amongst other things, the legend of Operation Yonatan.&nbsp; Wherever Jews are in the world, the Jewish state will protect them.<br /><br />Perhaps the greatest legacy left by Operation Yonatan comes in a much more personal form.&nbsp; The death of Yonni Netanyahu left a scar on his family, and left a profound mark on a 27 year-old MIT student.&nbsp; This student was Benjamin Netanyahu, younger brother of Yonni.&nbsp; In his own words, the death of his older brother, "changed my life and steered it to its current course".&nbsp; It is tough to judge to what extent the death of Yonni really spurred Benjamin to achieve what he has achieved over the years.&nbsp; It is possible that he would have risen to be prime minister of Israel and one of the most influential leaders on earth, even without the push that he received from Yonni's death.&nbsp; But we know about what he has managed to do in rising to be one of the best known and most influential people, and the influence that he has exerted over the years.&nbsp; And we know that much of this has been with Yonni in mind.&nbsp; The visit to Entebbe by the prime minister was not only in his capacity as prime minister, but was intensely personal as he mourned at the location where&nbsp; his older brother and hero met his death.&nbsp; One could not help wondering what Yonni would be thinking as he looked down on the scene from his seat in heaven.<br /><br />As we look at the events at Entebbe with the benefit of 40 years of hindsight, the legacy is probably stronger now than it was in the euphoric days that followed the operation.&nbsp; The strong message sent out by the Israeli government regarding its commitment to protect Jews around the world, and the message sent out by the IDF and the Mossad regarding their ability to do so, are louder and clearer than before.&nbsp; And the personal impact left on one young student who went on to be one of the world's most recognisable personalities is unquestionable.&nbsp; If the same set of circumstances presented themselves again, I have no doubt that the response would be no different.&nbsp; This ultimately proves the greatness of the operation.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-64503916034651505942016-07-03T22:00:00.000+03:002016-07-05T22:18:51.302+03:00Goodbye to EU<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://alexedmans.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Brexit-1030x596.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://alexedmans.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Brexit-1030x596.jpg" height="185" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image courtesy http://alexedmans.com.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>It has come as a surprise to many, especially to me, that the UK has voted to leave the EU.&nbsp; Apparently, I was not the only one to be surprised.&nbsp; The UK government has been paralysed by the surprise of this vote.&nbsp; Even though I knew that the outcome of the referendum was always going to be close, I thought that the undecided voters were more likely to take a conservative view and sway the overall result to opt for the status quo.&nbsp; In spit of this, the decision to Brexit has been made in an unequivocal manner by a majority of more than a million votes.&nbsp; The people of the UK have spoken.<br /><br />Commentators in Israel have been analysing the consequences for Israel of the UK leaving the EU.&nbsp; The assessments that I have seen have been fairly superficial, and there seems to be no consensus as to whether the UK leaving the EU will be a good or bad thing for Israel.&nbsp; While the relationship between Israel and the UK is likely to remain unchanged for the foreseeable future, and the same can be said of the relationship between Israel and the EU, I hold the view that the UK's exit from the EU is a very good thing for Israel for a number of reasons.<br /><br />It is well known and widely acknowledged that the UK and the EU have very different positions on Israel.&nbsp; While the UK is a friend of Israel's and has done much in the international community to support Israel and encourage understanding towards Israel and the challenges that she faces, the same cannot be said of the EU.&nbsp; It is somewhat ironic that, while some of Europe's strongest nations hold a supportive view towards Israel. the formal position adopted by the EU as an organisation is so negative.&nbsp; This position silences the individual countries like the UK who are members of the EU, and whose view is contrary to that adopted by the EU.&nbsp; As a respected country in the international community, we can expect to hear the UK's voice more loudly in the future.&nbsp; This is not only on the matter of Israel, but potentially on many other matters as well.&nbsp; From an Israeli point of view, we very much look forward to hearing an independent UK voice in the international community, rather than the muted and diluted voice that has been drowned out by the EU.<br /><br />It seems clear to me that the UK vote was substantially influenced by the refugee crisis in Europe last summer, when Europe was overrun with refugees from Syria and north Africa.&nbsp; While many of the migrants were escaping from war zones and could be classed as true refugees, there was a significant number who were really economic migrants trying to gain access to Europe for a better economic future for them and their families.&nbsp; And, while this objective is one to be respected and supported wherever possible, it is clear that Europe does not have the ability or economic strength to absorb all of those economic migrants who would like to move there.&nbsp; The UK has long ago discovered that it is almost impossible to preserve her borders as part of the EU, and to keep unwanted migrants out.&nbsp; The EU has established EU-wide rules for admission of refugees, and has open borders within the union that allows the free flow of people from one EU member country to another.&nbsp; What also became blatantly clear last summer, was that the EU rules for admitting refugees have a much greater impact on some member countries than others.&nbsp; Most of the migrants swarming from Syria and elsewhere into Europe, were determined to make their way to the UK and Germany in particular.&nbsp; This was not a new phenomenon, as is evidenced by the encampments near Calais in France containing thousands who are waiting for their opportunity to secret their way across the English Channel.&nbsp; Many EU countries, who carry an equal vote when deciding on matters such as allowing refugees into the union, were not having to bear the consequences of their decision at all.&nbsp; Instead, the refugees were heading straight to the UK and one or two other countries.&nbsp; The citizens of the UK found that they had no way of securing their borders against unwanted migrants, while a member of the EU.&nbsp; The EU was determining this on their behalf.&nbsp; I see the vote to leave the EU as an exercise of the right to secure borders.&nbsp; This position will certainly be one that Israel can identify with in the strongest terms.<br /><br />The decision by the UK to leave the EU seems to be a slippery slope.&nbsp; Reports suggest that another half a dozen EU members, emboldened by the British vote, are lining up to hold a similar referendum on continued membership of the union.&nbsp; There can be no doubt that the Brexit decision has weakened the EU as an organisation, and that further referendums and decisions to leave will serve to weaken it even more.&nbsp; This could perhaps be the beginning of the end of the EU.&nbsp; If one of the other founding members decides to leave the EU, I predict that this could potentially be a trigger for the EU to disentigrate completely.&nbsp; Israel will not be heartbroken over such a break-up, if it occurs.&nbsp; While the EU is a significant trading partner for Israel, the EU has been a political thorn in Israel's side.&nbsp; Israel would much prefer to allow each EU member to present its views in the international community on an individual basis, rather than have the EU present the view of the majority of members as one single European view.&nbsp; The larger and more influential European countries are largely supporters of Israel.&nbsp; Their view is diluted by other smaller and less influential European countries, but whose vote carries equal weight within the EU voting system in determining foreign policy.<br /><br />Anything that weakens the EU and its standing in the international community, will help Israel's cause.&nbsp; The EU has been critical of Israel's attempts to protect herself against terorism and attacks against her citizens.&nbsp; The EU has a strong position within the UN, the Quartet and other international organisations that are active on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but has constantly supported almost anything that the Palestinians say against Israel.&nbsp; The union has placed significant pressure on Israel to take "confidence-building" steps by giving in to demands being made by the Palestinians.&nbsp; When these demands are not matched by confidence-building steps by the Palestinians, it feels like Israel is being forced to take unilateral actions that ultimately weaken her position.&nbsp; The EU has been at the forefront of forcing Israel to take such actions.<br /><br />The more I think about the result of the Brexit vote, the more surprised I am about it.&nbsp; And the more convinced I am that this will be good for Israel's situation in the international community.&nbsp; I admire those UK citizens who made the difficult decision to follow this route, and feel confident that it will ultimately be good for their country, and good for ours. Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-39404284156163489312016-06-05T22:35:00.002+03:002016-06-05T22:58:15.860+03:00Staying Unified<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SB-JPC90z6I/maxresdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SB-JPC90z6I/maxresdefault.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Picture from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGO2vuqdQC8wY0kl5-ySHRQ" target="_blank">aicvideo</a></td></tr></tbody></table>Today is the day in the Jewish calendar that Israelis (and others) celebrate the reunification of the holy city of Jerusalem 49 years ago.&nbsp; Jerusalem Day is celebrated widely, and nowhere more enthusiastically than in the city itself.<br /><br />Not only is Jerusalem one of the oldest cities in the world, it is undoubtedly the most controversial city in history.&nbsp; According to Wikipedia, the city has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.&nbsp; And these numbers do not include internal strife, intifadas and terror attacks which persist in the city until today.&nbsp; Although these events have taken place over approximately 5,000 years, it still seems a great deal for any city to endure, and there are many who wonder why it is that one city should be so sought after that people are prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to secure control over the city.<br /><br />For the Jewish people, the answer is quite clear.&nbsp; The belief is that the creation of the world emanated from the Foundation Stone on Mount Moriah.&nbsp; This is also the same place that Jacob was ordered to sacrifice Isaac (and then stopped from doing so), and also coincides with the location of of the famous dream of Jacob's ladder.&nbsp; So it comes as no surprise that King David chose this place to erect his City of David in approximately 1,000 BCE, and that Solomon's Temple was built on Mount Moriah soon after this.&nbsp; From the moment that Solomon's Temple stood at this site (and possibly even from long before), it took on the undisputed position as the holiest place on earth to all Jews.&nbsp; The city of Jerusalem is mentioned by name more than 600 times in the Jewish biblical texts, and thousands more times by other names and references.&nbsp; The centrality of this location and this city to Jews is without rival.&nbsp; It is highly likely that this centrality is the reason why Jesus, a Jewish boy from Nazareth, found himself in Jerusalem where he was crucified.&nbsp; This established Jerusalem as a holy city for his followers, later to be known as Christians.&nbsp; The holiness of Jerusalem to the third monotheistic religion, Islam, stems from an event that took place more than 600 years later.&nbsp; The Quran tells us that the Prophet Mohammad was taken by Buraq to visit the "furthest mosque" (believed to mean the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem), from where Mohammad was taken to heaven.&nbsp; This reference is the sole claim that Muslims have to Jerusalem as a holy city (although still not quite as holy as Mecca and Medina), and Jerusalem is not mentioned by name once in the entire Quran.&nbsp; The scene was set for conflict, disagreement, war, death and destruction surrounding the control of this city, holy to three religions.<br /><br />Today we celebrate 49 years of freedom of the city of Jerusalem.&nbsp; This freedom extends not only to Jews and Israelis who have administrative control over the city.&nbsp; It extends to all from the three religions, and others, who come in peace to worship, learn the history and pay respects to the holy city.&nbsp; But this was not always the case, and is never taken for granted in this conflict-filled city.&nbsp; Even as recently as 50 years ago, Jews were prevented from entering the Old City of Jerusalem, and approaching the holy site of the Western Wall.&nbsp; This fact alone is justification for Israel to continue to exert control over the city and its holy sites.<br /><br />Over the past few years, Jerusalem has put on an annual festival of light as part of the Jerusalem Day festivities.&nbsp; It is highly symbolic that the city, with such a dark history, has a festival of light to emphasize all that is positive about the city.&nbsp; I had the good fortune to participate in the festival this year, and it is an experience that has left an impression that will remain with me for a long time to come.&nbsp; Not only were each of the exhibits creative and interesting, the atmosphere that could be felt around all parts of the city was electrifying (no pun intended).&nbsp; Thousands of people formed a human chain following the different coloured tracks around the streets of the Old City, and around the walls.&nbsp; People were drawn to parts of the Old City that they had never visited, perhaps because they were afraid or perhaps just because they were off the beaten track and unfamiliar.&nbsp; I could not help noticing that people came from all parts of the country, from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds.&nbsp; Muslims joined with Christians and Jews in celebrating the light of this intriguing city.&nbsp; I silently wondered as I walked around the thronging alleyways whether the Muslims were not enjoying more freedom now since the Old City is in Jewish hands, than they did when it was ruled by Jordan.&nbsp; It could only happen under Jewish leadership that the King of Jordan, the same Jordan that denied Jews the right to access its holiest site for 19 long years years, is now the head of the Waqf religious council that has jurisdiction over Muslim holy sites in the city of Jerusalem.<br /><br />Despite the conflicts and violence that continue in Jerusalem at the current time, the city of Jerusalem has undergone probably one of its most dramatic reconstruction periods in its history over the past 49 years.&nbsp; While the integrity and the character of the original city has been preserved, the construction of infrastructure and residential and commercial buildings has been astonishing.&nbsp; The light rail trundles over ancient cobblestones, and modern buildings are built in the Jerusalem stone in keeping with the rest of the architecture of the city, blending in with the ancient walls of the Old City.<br /><br />Jews have maintained a continuous presence in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem since the 8th century BCE, with the exception of the period between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan brutally forced Jews out.&nbsp; There were periods when being Jewish in the Jewish Quarter was not easy, but Jews were never willing to give up on this despite any hardship.&nbsp; The same tenacious spirit is in evidence today.&nbsp; Jews will not give up on the presence in the Jewish Quarter, and Jews will not give up on the united city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.<br /><br />Each time I visit Jerusalem, I wonder what my grandparents and great-grandparents would feel if they saw the ease with which I am able to visit the holiest city in Judaism, and its holiest site, the Western Wall.&nbsp; I wonder what they would think to see me driving freely around the streets, walking in the market and viewing the Knesset building.&nbsp; We are indeed a privileged generation to have the immense good fortune to live at this time when we are able to do the things that our forefathers prayed fervently to have the right to do, and who died fighting to do.&nbsp; When we say <i>Lshana habaa B'Yerushalayim</i> at the end of the Pesach seder, it is not a pipe dream.&nbsp; It is something that is absolutely achievable.<br /><br />If the history of Jerusalem is anything to go by, we will be forced to continue to fight to retain Jerusalem as our eternal capital.&nbsp; It is a fight that most Israelis are prepared to undertake, and a fight that many have already died for.&nbsp; But this makes us stronger rather than weaker, and our resolve to retain Jerusalem will never diminish.&nbsp; For now, we bask in the glory of Jerusalem, and we rejoice in our ability to be free as Jews in our holy city.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-19876150569986390782016-06-04T21:00:00.000+03:002016-06-04T23:08:28.995+03:00Rough Justice?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/04/0419_azaria.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/04/0419_azaria.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The story of Sgt. Elor Azaria has captured the imagination of many Israelis, and has succeeded in dividing opinions very sharply.&nbsp; Sgt. Azaria is an IDF soldier in the Kfir brigade, who was on duty near Hebron on a day in February when a terrorist stabbed and wounded another IDF soldier friend of his.&nbsp; According to the most reliable eye-witness accounts of the story, Sgt. Azaria shot at the terrorist some time after the terrorist had already been neutralised and was under the full control of other IDF soldiers.&nbsp; The shot fired from Sgt. Azaria's gun resulted in the death of the terrorist.&nbsp; As a result of this incident, Elor has been court-martialed, and charged with the offense of manslaughter.<br /><br />The entire episode has played itself out in the public eye.&nbsp; This is due to the intervention of the human rights organisation Btselem, who miraculously had somebody on the scene to record the events, and decided that it was appropriate to publicly air a video taken of the incident.&nbsp; The video turns out to have been edited before being publicised, and without full disclosure of that fact.&nbsp; The act of airing the video in public pushed the matter, and the debate, into the public arena.&nbsp; The IDF was forced to respond publicly saying that it would investigate the incident, and take actions against the soldier if appropriate.&nbsp; This, in turn, sparked a great deal of public support for the soldier, explaining that he has been forced to operate in extremely dangerous conditions as a result of the recent wave of terrorist violence in the West Bank and Israel.&nbsp; It was put forward that his actions should be understood in the context of the situation that has been imposed upon Israel and her soldiers.&nbsp; Israel's prime minister, minister of defense, chief of general staff and other ministers in government all felt the need to make public statements on the matter in criticising the soldier's actions.&nbsp; In turn, this drew in the family of the soldier and many others who felt the need to defend him.&nbsp; The incident degenerated into a classic public free-for-all. <br /><br />The considerations on each side of the argument are clear, and convincing.&nbsp; Israel is a country that is constantly under threat from those who wish to destroy her and her people.&nbsp; This forces all of Israel's citizens to serve in the army as protection against those who desire to reap destruction.&nbsp; Israel's soldiers are placed in danger's way each and every day.&nbsp; This is not a normal or acceptable situation, and places enormous stress on young people who serve in the country's military.&nbsp; Little consideration seems to be given by the international community to this fact.&nbsp; Instead, Israel's soldiers are constantly under close scrutiny.&nbsp; Organisations like Btselem ignore the human rights abuses that are inherent in the constant threats to Israel, and they find it only necessary to hold Israel and her soldiers accountable for their reactions in the spur of the moment.&nbsp; This background forms the basis for the support that Elor has received from the public.&nbsp; The fact that he was placed in a difficult situation having to protect his country at such a young age, has elicited sympathy and respect for him, and support for his actions.&nbsp; Elor and his brigade spent many long hours on patrols, knowing that somebody could try to kill them at any moment.&nbsp; Why should terrorists be afforded human rights, when they have no respect for the human rights of others?&nbsp; There are many who believe that the fact that this person was trying to kill another individual in an orchestrated terror attack, immediately removes his right to being treated with respect and removes his human rights.&nbsp; So, for many Israelis, it is inconceivable that a soldier can be tried on charges of killing a terrorist.&nbsp; This is, after all, the job that soldiers are trained to do.<br /><br />Despite many indications to the contrary, the IDF has strict disciplinary rules that it enforces.&nbsp; These rules have been developed to fit with the environment in which its soldiers are forced to operate, and are designed to take advantage of the Israeli culture to extract the most from each conscripted soldier.&nbsp; The rules are also highly influenced by our Jewish heritage, and the values that come with that.&nbsp; The IDF's view is that we have the obligation to separate ourselves and our behaviour from those who seek to destroy us, and who behave without compassion or humanity in their quest to achieve this.&nbsp; Even though the IDF's objective is to protect the people and the State of Israel, this should be achieved in a manner that is true to our cultural and religious teachings.&nbsp; We should never lose sight of the fact that our soldiers are human beings before they are soldiers.&nbsp; It is for this reason that the IDF discipline affords human rights not only to soldiers, but also to terrorists and enemies.&nbsp; When responding to terrorists and enemy fighters, IDF soldiers have strict rules of engagement that are closely policed.&nbsp; While giving IDF soldiers freedom to do almost anything that is required in the protection of Israeli lives, the rules of engagement strictly forbid shooting anybody unless an order to do so has been given or unless a victim's life is in immediate danger.&nbsp; Failure to abide by the rules of engagement is taken seriously.&nbsp; An army that has to counter the threats that the IDF sees daily, is forced to have a zero tolerance policy on operational transgressions.&nbsp; There is no room for any soldier to have his or her own agenda or ulterior motive while he is in the service of the IDF.&nbsp; If there is any suspicion that Elor has overstepped the well-kown and highly drilled rules of engagement, the correct action is to investigate the matter and give the soldier the right to defend his or her actions.&nbsp; If the soldier felt fear or threat at the moment that he fired his shot, or believed that another life was in imminent danger, he will have his opportunity to present this defence.<br /><br />I feel confident that the court-martial system will allow the charges to be put to the soldier, while also allowing him the opportunity to defend them in a democratic manner.&nbsp; No external party or member of the public, whether it be Btselem, the minister of defense, the chief of general staff and even the prime minister can, or should pre-empt or interrupt this process.&nbsp; It is extremely regrettable that this process is being played out in public, and it would be far more effective to allow the IDF to do its job internally in the manner that it is accustomed to doing.&nbsp; It is clear that the act by Btselem of bringing this into the public domain effectively forced some of our leadership to respond to this in public.&nbsp; The response, however, to the Btselem accusations was way beyond what was required.&nbsp; Some believe that this was designed to pander to the international community, rather than considering the impact on the soldier and on the IDF as a whole.&nbsp; Elor Azaria has become a villain in the eyes of some, while being a hero in the eyes of others.&nbsp; I regard this act of forcing him into such a high public profile is possibly as stressful as the job that he was doing in the field near Hebron.<br /><br />There is no doubt that Israel's young soldiers are forced to endure more stress than other young people of their age, and perhaps even more than professional soldiers in the armies of other countries.&nbsp; Israel is currently the only country in the developed world that is being forced to fight a war within its borders, and the only country whose very existence is constantly questioned and threatened.&nbsp; In spite of this fact, the international community seems to hold Israel to standards that are far in excess of the standards expected of other countries.&nbsp; All of this is extremely unreasonable and even discriminatory, but standing up and shouting about it from the rooftops appears futile.&nbsp; It does not help Israel secure her future, which is the most important task at hand.<br /><br />It is thanks to the enthusiasm of those like Elor Azaria that Israel is able to protect herself against the constant threats of destruction.&nbsp; Israel's young soldiers show incredible loyalty and patriotism when serving their country.&nbsp; This enthusiasm needs to be allowed to show itself within a very stringent framework.&nbsp; The framework is not only important for the discipline in the IDF, it is important for our soldiers and our country to retain their humanity.&nbsp; This is the key difference that distinguishes Israel from her enemies, and is something that we would never wish to lose.&nbsp; We would never wish to sink to the levels of those who seek to destroy Israel.<br /><br />It is important now to allow the court-martial to conduct its work according to the rules and democratic principles under which it operates.&nbsp; No external parties should be allowed to influence this process in any way.&nbsp; No doubt, the verdict of the court-martial will be received with controversy, whatever its outcome.&nbsp; We are forced to accept the verdict, and understand that this is the way in which our democracy operates.&nbsp; Whatever the outcome may be, I feel immensely proud that we are able to retain our humanity even under the most extreme conditions.&nbsp; And I am proud that we demand this humanity of our soldiers, even if the international community does not acknowledge this.Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-39143106826863299552016-05-18T08:00:00.000+03:002016-05-18T08:00:16.506+03:00Lies, Damn Lies and Deligitimisation<div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Ken_Livingstone.jpg/220px-Ken_Livingstone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Ken_Livingstone.jpg/220px-Ken_Livingstone.jpg" /></a></div><i>"The creation of the State of Israel was fundamentally wrong,&nbsp; because there had been a Palestinian community there for 2000 years".</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>"The creation of the State of Israel was a great catastrophe.&nbsp; We should have absorbed the post World War II Jewish refugees in Britain and America".</i></div><br />These are the words of former London mayor and UK Labour Party member and activist, Ken Livingstone in a recent <a href="http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5458.htm" target="_blank">interview</a> that he conducted with <span class="text14" id="article_content">Arabic station Al Ghad Al Arabi.&nbsp; The fact that Livingstone, or "Red Ken" as he is known by the British establishment, is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic is not new to most of us.&nbsp; His own Labour Party recently suspended him on accusations of anti-Semitism, along with more than 50 other members of the party. &nbsp; What is surprising is the fact that a former mayor of a capital city of one of the world's leading and progressive nations, can utter such factual inaccuracies in support of his anti-Semitic rant.&nbsp; What is perhaps even more astonishing is that so many around the world accept these inaccuracies as fact. and find his open anti-Semitism (dressed up as anti-Zionism) to be perfectly acceptable.</span><br /><br /><span class="text14" id="article_content">Even though Red Ken was only a babe at the time that the State of Israel came into existence and will probably not be able to remember its details, it is incumbent on a man in his position and who is as outspoken as he is, to get the facts right before taking strong public positions.&nbsp; Instead, he is using inaccuracies to justify his bias.&nbsp; If he had learnt the facts, he would know that there was no Palestinian community in 1948, and so there could not have been a Palestinian community for 2000 years.&nbsp; The concept of a "Palestinian people" or community only arose after the 1967 Six Day War when the Arab countries lost control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem after trying to drive the Jews into the sea once more.&nbsp; After they realised that they had little chance of defeating Israel militarily in order to gain control over the land held by the Jews, the notion of a "Palestinian people" was born as a tactic to beguile the world into feeling sympathy for their cause.&nbsp; This has now translated into an "occupation" of their land, a misconception believed by a vast majority of the world's citizens and used endlessly at the UN and other international bodies to criticise Israel. </span><br /><span class="text14" id="article_content"><br /></span><span class="text14" id="article_content">It is ironic that he makes a statement that the creation of the State of Israel was a catastrophe.&nbsp; Why a catastrophe?&nbsp; Does he believe that peace would have prevailed in this region had the State of Israel not come into being?&nbsp; In the same interview, Livingstone refers to Libya and Iraq.&nbsp; In those cases, he tries to blame western intervention for the conflicts that arose in those, and other Middle Eastern countries.&nbsp; He claims that the west is equally to blame for the rise of Islamic terrorism, which has come about because of western double standards in the Middle East in Livingstone's opinion.&nbsp; According to him, this is what has been encouraging angry youth to fight alongside ISIS and other terror groups.&nbsp; Even he is smart enough to recognise that Arab and Muslim groups have fought amongst each other for hundreds of years., and that western intervention was not required to trigger terrorist activities.&nbsp; We only need to witness the most basic split between Sunni and Shia Muslims to understand this, not to speak of the numerous tribal and political splits in evidence around the Middle East.&nbsp; Does Livingstone believe that the Middle East would have been more enlightened and more developed without the existence of the State of Israel?&nbsp; Once again, we have numerous examples to cite where Muslims have failed to capitalise on opportunities to enlighten and develop their countries and their people.&nbsp; Should this be blamed on Israel?&nbsp; Can we blame the terror state that has been constructed in Gaza, and funded by foreign aid, on Israel?&nbsp; The catastrophe that Ken talks about is the same catastrophe that the Palestinians speak about.&nbsp; It is the catastrophe of the Jews have a free homeland in which they can find self-determination.</span><br /><span class="text14" id="article_content"><br /></span><span class="text14" id="article_content">It is ironic that Mr. Livingstone thinks that Britain and America should have absorbed all the post World War II Jewish refugees, and their failure to do so caused the "catastrophe" of the creation of the State of Israel.&nbsp; In reality, it was exactly because of bigoted anti-Semites like Red Ken, that these countries and others refused to accept Jewish refugees, both during the war (when they really needed place to go) and in its aftermath.&nbsp; Even those who were allowed to escape to western countries were made to feel like they were "guests", who may be sent out at any moment.&nbsp; The exposure of endemic anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Britain is not as a result of a recent development.&nbsp; This manifests itself as a result of decades of institutionalised anti-Semitism in many areas of British society.&nbsp; Who would believe that, even as recently as the 1980's, some large government-owned companies in the UK had a policy of not employing Jews?&nbsp; This anti-Semitism has been cleansed by the political acceptability of being anti-Israel.&nbsp; The anti-Semites finally found a legitimate cause that allows them to openly express their anti-Semitism in the public arena.&nbsp; Even if they claim to oppose Israel's actions and policies while being Jew lovers.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span class="text14" id="article_content">It should be clear that anybody who denies the right of the State of Israel to exist, or supports groups who seek Israel's destruction, is an anti-Semite.&nbsp; This has little to do with the so-called occupation or the rights of the Palestinian people.&nbsp; There are millions of Palestinians in refugee camps in the region, whose human rights are being denied in a much more systematic way than anything that Israel has ever done.&nbsp; No criticism is issued about these human rights abuses, or about the abuses by the Palestinian leadership of its own people.&nbsp; Instead, this has everything to do with the right of the Jews to be masters of their own destiny, and to have the right to protect themselves and their&nbsp; Jewish homeland.&nbsp; It can be dressed up as anti-Zionism or support for the Palestinian people, but the real root cause is well understood, and will not hidden from sight.</span><br /><span class="text14" id="article_content"><br /></span><span class="text14" id="article_content">UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is on record calling Hamas and Hezbollah his friends.&nbsp; And he is the one who has suspended more than 50 members of his party for their anti-Semitic behaviour.&nbsp; This is evidence of how deep the anti-Semitism in the Labour Party runs.&nbsp; The fact that those who support groups calling for Israel's destruction are the ones suspending the anti-Semites is ironic.&nbsp; The anti-Semites have succeeded in galvanising support for hating the Jews and Israel around the issue of human rights abuses against the Palestinians.&nbsp; This has filtered into the left-wing arm of the Jewish community, giving even greater strength to the mantra that being anti-Israel does not necessarily equal being anti-Jewish.&nbsp; Each meeting of the UNHRC is forced to discuss agenda item 7 covering human rights violations by Israel.&nbsp; How does it transpire that, amongst all human rights violators in the world (of which there are many), Israel is the one and only country that is forced to endure a torrent of criticism and abuse at each and every UNHRC meeting?&nbsp; My contention is that it is rooted in institutionalised anti-Semitism at this organisation<i>,</i> and many others.</span><br /><br /><span class="text14" id="article_content">Although Red Ken is a classic example of anti-Semitism in its ugliest form, he is unfortunately not the only example.&nbsp; And he is sufficiently unashamed to be prepared to make public statements in support of his argument that are factually inaccurate and incorrect.&nbsp; The problem is that, when senior leaders like Livingstone make such statements and contentions, many of their followers believe it without any doubt and this perpetuates the unbridled hatred without cause.</span><br /><br /><span class="text14" id="article_content">When Livingstone refers to the "catastrophe", we understand what he truly means.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the so-called "nakba" or catastrophe that has befallen the Palestinian people.&nbsp; This could easily have been avoided if they had accepted the Palestine Partition Plan agreed by the UN in 1947, instead of choosing to try to destroy the Jews.&nbsp; The two-state solution that we continue to fight over today, could already have been implemented at that time.&nbsp; If this is indeed what the true desire is.&nbsp; Instead, Livingstone is referring to the catastrophe of the Jews having their right to independence and self-determination, and how much this has served to strengthen the cause and the presence of Jews around the world.&nbsp; I imagine that he may have described it as an even greater catastrophe had the UK absorbed more Jews in the period after the Shoa as he suggests, and had a greater presence and influence in the UK today.&nbsp; The mix of strong Jewish presence and influence, along with virulent anti-Semitism was exactly the recipe that brought the Nazis to power, and led to the Shoa and the massacre of 6 million people.&nbsp; So, while I don't tolerate this form of bigotry from Livingstone and I am happy that there is a State of Israel to call him out and provide protection to Jews against his ilk, I still prefer this form of a catastrophe to the alternatives that Livingstone suggests. </span>Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-53912009359929877922016-05-07T22:00:00.000+03:002016-05-07T22:00:15.543+03:00Remembrance Day Reflections<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5Q18AW_ioh0/Vy35-TDF2XI/AAAAAAAAAG0/9-0taMUK2jMVrjJmpXMudXUFu5n2q9tqQCLcB/s1600/Judenstern_JMW.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="289" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5Q18AW_ioh0/Vy35-TDF2XI/AAAAAAAAAG0/9-0taMUK2jMVrjJmpXMudXUFu5n2q9tqQCLcB/s320/Judenstern_JMW.png" width="320" /></a></div>When lighting the candle or listening to the siren on the day that commemorates the six million who were killed, and the heroes who survived the greatest genocide known to mankind, I find myself reflecting on so many different thoughts.&nbsp; We are afforded a few minutes to think about what was, what is and what could be.<br /><br />Amongst other thoughts, today I was struck by some of the similarities between Pesach and remembering the Shoah.&nbsp; Jewish texts and prayers are littered with references to the exodus from Egypt, and the obligation on the Jewish people to remember it.&nbsp; It is found necessary to remind Jews to remember this through the generations, despite it being regarded as probably the greatest miracle ever to happen to the Jewish people.&nbsp; Memories can apparently be short, even when it comes to recalling miracles.&nbsp; This is also reflected in the central mitzvah of the Pesach Seder, to tell one's children of the miracle of the exodus from Egypt.&nbsp; In fact, the Haggadah tells us that, in each generation, we should immerse ourselves into the exodus from Egypt so deeply, that we should imagine that we actually experienced it ourselves.<br /><br />In many ways, this is exactly what Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel is about.&nbsp; It is about never forgetting.&nbsp; It is about being immersed in the events that led to the annihilation of 6 million of our people.&nbsp; It is about recognising the bravery of those who stood up to the murderers despite the odds.&nbsp; It is about standing to support and strengthen the survivors.&nbsp; It is about never forgetting how evil people can be, and how Jews can be hated for no apparent reason.&nbsp; It is about celebrating the survival of our people, and celebrating he Jewish state.&nbsp; And it is about ensuring that the next generations know all of this so they will never forget.&nbsp; Most of all, it is about preserving the State of Israel which is the only way to ensure that this never happens again.<br /><br />In the months and years following the genocide, people could not believe that such an event had been allowed to take place without the intervention of the international community.&nbsp; And yet, more than 70 years later, it is easy to see how it could have happened.&nbsp; The United Nations organisation that was set up in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Shoa to ensure that it does not happen again, is exactly the organisation that gives a platform to those who wish for it to happen again.&nbsp; Many of the events that precipitated the murder of millions of our people, and the thoughts, sentiments, views and actions are dangerously repeating themselves in our day.&nbsp; It has become politically correct, acceptable and even desirable to be anti-Semitic, dressed up as being anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli.&nbsp; The BDS movement is at the forefront of what could be likened to the Nazi Party in Germany in the early 1930s.&nbsp; While they stop short of calling for the annihilation of the Jews, they are actively working to indelibly damage the State of Israel.&nbsp; They realise, as many of us do, that a world without Israel is a smokescreen for a world without Jews.<br /><br />While we unbelievably continue to witness the hatred towards Israel and Jews that was such a hallmark of the lead-up to the Shoa, there are a few things that have changed since then.&nbsp; With the access that we have to news and events around the world brought about by the Internet and social media, nobody will be able to say that they were not aware that this was happening.&nbsp; Some are in denial about the true intentions of the Palestinians, of BDS and of other anti-Israel activists.&nbsp; There are those, many of them Jews, who think that this is ok in our democratic world.&nbsp; It is their view that Israel deserves to be criticised and castigated for actions to defend her existence and that of her citizens and Jews around the world.&nbsp; But they will never be able to deny that these events took place.<br /><br />Perhaps the most important difference between then and now, is the existence of the State of Israel.&nbsp; It is not only the existence of the state, but also the existence of leadership which is prepared to take the difficult decisions required to ensure our continued survival.&nbsp; When considering this, along with a population of young and old who are willing to give all that they have to defend our rightful existence in our homeland, I am convinced that even the most determined anti-Semite will have no prospect of repeating the horrendous events of the Shoa.&nbsp; The State of Israel and the proud Jews who live there are our strength that is insurmountable to all those who wish harm upon the Jews.<br /><br />It has been amazing to see the evolution of the nervous, fearful yellow star into the strong, proud and determined blue star.&nbsp; The same star, but two different worlds.&nbsp; Whereas the yellow star was worn with shame and trepidation, the blue star stands for democracy, innovation, pride, determination and an attitude that will do everything to ensure that we never again return to the yellow star.<br /><br />We mourn those millions who were lost in the Shoa, but we bask in the glory of the State of Israel, the victory that this represents over those who wished to destroy us.&nbsp; We will never forget, and we will never return to those days.&nbsp; Never again.<br /><br />Am Yisrael Chai. <br /><br />Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2541588363732160451.post-19642566376565259782016-01-15T15:00:00.000+02:002016-01-15T15:00:22.648+02:00Reflections of 2015<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://media.cagle.com/15/2015/10/13/169965_600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.cagle.com/15/2015/10/13/169965_600.jpg" height="174" width="320" /></a></div>As we take the first few tentatives steps into 2016, it is a natural instinct to take a look back on the year that has just passed, and to assess its events.&nbsp; It was an action-packed year, not always in the positive sense of the word, and some of these occurrences are likely to accompany us for some years into the future.&nbsp; As I see things, 2015 will be remembered for two key happenings.&nbsp; The first of which is the signing of the deal with Iran by the P5+1 countries, led strongly by the US.&nbsp; The second happening is the campaign of terror that has swept across Israel over the past few months.<br /><br />The signing of the nuclear deal with Iran in July 2015 is of significance for a number of reasons, none of them favourable to Israel.&nbsp; After many years of operating a nuclear enrichment program in secret, Iran's nuclear program was given an official stamp of authority and approval by the international community upon the signing of the agreement.&nbsp; The fact that the program was run under cover for so long, brings into question the real intentions of this program.&nbsp; While Iran claims that the purpose of the nuclear enrichment program has always been for the purpose of producing electricity for domestic consumption (and indeed some of the enriched Uranium has been used for this purpose), this can surely not explain why it was operated in secret away from the prying eyes of the international community for all those years.&nbsp;&nbsp; Israeli intelligence tells us that Iran has been enriching Uranium to produce nuclear weapons, and the intelligence has found secret sites housed in underground bunkers where this has been happening for some time.&nbsp; The international community acknowledges this in its agreement with Iran.&nbsp; If there was no intention on the part of the Iranians to produce nuclear weapons, I guess that the convoluted agreement with Iran limiting its rights to enrich Uranium would not have been necessary.&nbsp; The fact that the negotiations took so long and involved brinkmanship right until the last moment, is clear indication that the objectives of the international community were not aligned with those of Iran.&nbsp; Now, it is claimed that Iran's nuclear program will be under constant supervision to ensure that it cannot produce nuclear weapons.&nbsp; This statement seems to ignore the fact that Iran successfully ran a secret program of producing nuclear weapons for so long, and is highly likely to continue to do so now in the same was as before, after the agreement has been concluded and implemented.<br /><br />The most astonishing revelation for me, is the fact that the international community is willing to negotiate and reach agreement with a country that constantly threatens the annihilation of another member of the international community.&nbsp; This simply legitimises bad behaviour that is contrary to the spirit and rules of the United Nations.&nbsp; Instead of castigating and isolating the country involved until such time as it amends its bad behaviour, this country is rewarded with an agreement that accepts its nuclear program (that was clearly intended for non-peaceful purposes) and lifts the sanctions that were designed to punish it.&nbsp; I see the signing of this agreement as one of the great historical mistakes of the international community, and one that will have a substantial negative impact on peace and safety of the Middle East for many years ahead.&nbsp; By signing this agreement, and by legitimising Iran's nuclear program that is at best highly questionable, the international community effectively becomes a party to the threats and the terrorist activities that Iran perpetrates and funds against Israel.<br /><br />The second notable event of 2015 in my eyes, is the cycle of violence that has taken hold of Israel.&nbsp; What ostensibly started out as a few "lone wolves" venting their frustration against Israel and Jews, has taken hold as a cycle supported by the usual terror organisations, as well as the Palestinian Authority. (PA)&nbsp; At first, it seemed as though the isolated stabbing of an innocent civilian, or the odd "accident" in which pedestrians were being run over by vehicles would pass quickly.&nbsp; But it has expanded further into what some are calling the third intifada or the "stabbing intifada".&nbsp; The term "intifada" is one that indicates that the uprising is being supported by the PA, something that the Israeli government goes out of is way to deny.&nbsp; When the only action that the PA is seen to take in the wake of these attacks is to justify them on the grounds of the fact that Palestinians are feeling frustrated by the so-called "occupation", there can be no doubt of their complicity.&nbsp; Complicity does not necessarily come in the form of supplying arms and specifically sending terrorists into action.&nbsp; Their complicity comes in the form of tacit consent.<br /><br />But there is more to it than this.&nbsp; The PA's contribution to the uprising that we see now runs longer and deeper.&nbsp; It begins with the messages that are being sent to children in schools about the Jewish enemy, and about how the Palestinians will not rest until they ultimately conquer all the land that currently forms part of the Jewish state.&nbsp; It continues with the premeditated act of maintaining squalid living conditions for their citizens, and deflecting the blame for this onto the "occupation".&nbsp; This builds further animosity and hatred, and is not at all accurate.&nbsp; There seems to be no accounting for the billions of dollars of international aid money given to the PA over the years, earmarked for assisting economic development for its citizens.&nbsp; Instead, much of it has been syphoned into the personal bank accounts of the PA leadership, who all enjoy luxurious standards of living.&nbsp; Some of the money is being paid to the families of "shahids", those who have been killed while carrying out terror attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. Some of these shahids are from the current "stabbing intifada" wave of violence, giving further credence to their support of the current uprising.&nbsp; The PA is not at all as sweet and innocent as they would wish the international community to believe.<br /><br />While it may be possible to quell the cycle of violence with a firm hand from Israeli security and military personnel, it will leave its footprint in the same way as other violence has done.&nbsp; People are being killed unnecessarily on both sides of the divide.&nbsp; These deaths simply generate further animosity and calls for revenge.&nbsp; They radicalise people who see these deaths as just another attempt to destroy one people or another, or deny an entire nation or people the right to exist in peace and security.&nbsp; Surely the time has come for the PA to be held to account for its actions, and for its role in the violence that we have seen, not only now, but over many years?<br /><br />In spite of these and other challenges that the State of Israel has had to deal with during 2015, it is remarkable to note the progress that it has made in parallel.&nbsp; The Israeli economy continued to grow at more than 2% pa during 2015, had the lowest levels of unemployment ever, had the lowest interest rates in history and also had negative inflation.&nbsp; The Shekel ended 2015 as the currency with strongest growth against the US Dollar for the year.&nbsp; Israel absorbed more than 30,000 Jews from other countries, many of whom were running from the threats of ever-increasing anti-Semitism.&nbsp; Many of these achievements could not be matched by countries that do not have to deal with big threats and issues that Israel deals with daily.&nbsp; It shows the resilience and the resourcefulness of Israel and her people.<br /><br />So, while we tentatively step into 2016 expecting more of the same from 2015, there remains an air of optimism about what can be achieved this year.&nbsp; Imagine what could be done if there was not so much time, energy and money being devoted to fighting negative forces.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Anthony Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04316258988072517706noreply@blogger.com1